Oral Answers to Questions

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Holidays (Disabled People)

Gordon Marsden: What discussions she has had with (a) the English Tourism Council and (b) other bodies on marketing and expanding opportunities for domestic holidays for people with disabilities.

Kim Howells: Widening access to tourism for people with disabilities is a key commitment for the Government and the English Tourism Council. My Department has regular discussions with the ETC and other relevant bodies on that topic. The ETC currently has no marketing role, but that is under review. There is much more that we can do to co-ordinate private and public sector funds that are currently spent on marketing tourism in England.

Gordon Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Given that today is the International Day for Disabled People, does he agree that we have an appropriate opportunity to review what marketing bodies, under whatever heading, can do specifically to market holidays for disabled people? ETC research has shown that2.7 million people in this country would take such holidays, the majority of them domestic. Will he consider with other Departments the possibility of ring-fenced budgets specifically for such marketing, as well as other initiatives targeted on the community of people with disabilities?

Kim Howells: The burden of marketing in this country lies with the private sector—with those who own attractions and with the resorts themselves. I hope that it will remain so, as I do not want politicians to try to second-guess how best to market resorts and so on. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that much more needs to be done to encourage those who are registered as disabled to take holidays in this country. I understand that 9.5 million people are registered as disabled; far too few have the opportunity to take holidays in Great Britain.

Andrew Mitchell: When considering those important matters in relation to disabled people, will the Minister bear in mind the excellence in that respect of Birmingham's bid to host the national stadium? Does he agree that Wembley has blown it through its own actions and that it is now right, not least because of the facilities for disabled people, that Birmingham should be the location of the national stadium?

Kim Howells: That was a good try, but that is a matter for the Football Association.

Lottery Funding (South Yorkshire)

Caroline Flint: What progress has been made in ensuring an increased share of successful bids for national lottery money in south Yorkshire.

Richard Caborn: Our data show that since the National Lottery Act 1998 and the revised policy directions issued to distributors that same year, the proportion of all lottery awards going to south Yorkshire has increased by 19 per cent.

Caroline Flint: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but I have a question about common sense in the assessment of applications for lottery funds. I do not know whether he has had a chance to investigate an application to the better play programme from St. Alban's school in Denaby Main in my constituency to have an underground spring diverted from the sports field to be used for a range of play and sports activities. The application was turned down
	"because it would not extend the choice and control children have over their play or maximise the range of play opportunities".
	What choice or control can children have when their playing field is waterlogged?

Richard Caborn: As my hon. Friend knows, we received a letter from her constituency office on 22 or23 November and officials are looking into the case. We want to reduce bureaucracy wherever we can. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 27 June to the lotteries monitoring panel that we were refocusing lottery funding on some of the poorer areas of the United Kingdom. I shall look into the case that my hon. Friend raises. The issue is one that we want to resolve quickly.

BBC (Political Impartiality)

Andrew Robathan: When she last met the chairman of the governors of the BBC to discuss political impartiality in the corporation's broadcasts.

Tessa Jowell: I have met with the chairman of the governors of the BBC, but not to discuss political impartiality in the corporation's broadcasts—nor would it be appropriate for me to do so. That is a matter for the BBC governors.

Andrew Robathan: Notwithstanding the chairman's many attributes, including his success in making squillions while working for Goldman Sachs, does the Secretary of State agree that someone who was an adviser to Harold Wilson and James Callaghan and who is famously alleged to have wept when Neil Kinnock was defeated in the 1992 general election is bound to see the world and politics with an inherent bias—through, dare one say, rose or red-tinted spectacles? Would she be happy if the Director-General of the BBC, the chairman, the political editor and the editor of the "Today" programme were all paid-up members, or well-known donors, or active supporters of the Conservative party?

Tessa Jowell: The new chairman of the BBC was selected for the first time by the open Nolan principle. An advertisement was placed, applications were invited and the candidates were interviewed; a recommendation was made to me, then the Prime Minister, and was submitted to the Queen. That is how openness in public appointments and public confidence are maintained under a Labour Government. That is in stark contrast to the way in which Marmaduke Hussey, a recent chairman of the BBC, was appointed. He recorded that the telephone conversation went as follows:
	"Oh, Dukey, it's Douglas Hurd here, with a very odd question to ask you. Would you like to be chairman of the BBC? . . . The only problem is that I must have the answer by . . . Saturday."
	We believe in openness; Gavyn Davies is an excellent candidate.

Tam Dalyell: May I remind my right hon. Friend of the time long, long ago when there were wiser Tories in the leadership? When Reggie Bevins was Postmaster-General responsible for the BBC, he was goaded into saying, "I'll do something about 'That was the week that was'". The next morning, he arrived in his office and there was a little note saying, "Oh no you won't. Harold"—Macmillan.

Tessa Jowell: It is important to ensure that history does not repeat itself. Secretaries of State and Ministers do well to keep out of aspects of the governance of the BBC that are well protected by the BBC charter and the BBC governors.

Nigel Waterson: Will the Secretary of State explain why, of all broadcasters, the BBC should be exempt from the supervision of Ofcom? Why should it remain the judge and jury on its own impartiality and coverage of politics in this country?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for broadcasting will deal with that matter later during Question Time. However, there is a common misunderstanding of the matter. When, subject to parliamentary approval, Ofcom is established, a common set of principles will apply to all broadcasters, including the BBC, other public service broadcasters and broadcasters in the commercial sector. We have made it clear that there will be a level playing field for regulatory expectations of the BBC and other broadcasters. The BBC wants that and, in fairness, so should the rest of the broadcasting market.

Stephen Pound: Bearing in mind the earlier question about the national stadium, could I ask the Minister for Sport whether, like millions of Londoners, he has been following the correspondence in the Evening Standard on the possibility of having a national stadium at Northolt—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot go back to the national stadium.

Sports Clubs (North-East)

Kevan Jones: What assistance is being given to local sports clubs in the north-east.

Richard Caborn: Sport England's north-east regional office is working closely with sports clubs and a wide range of other partners in the region to deliver Sport England's national programmes. Additionally, to date voluntary sports clubs in the region have benefited from 83 awards from the lottery sports fund worth £9.3 million, and 277 grants worth £833,000 have been made under the awards for all programme.

Kevan Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply which, I know, will be welcomed in the north-east. However, I wish to raise the plight of the Hermitage school in Chester-le-Street in my constituency. A month ago, its community sports facilities were ravaged by fire, and it is in the process of making a sports lottery bid. However, it has been told by Sport England that it cannot use £0.5 million of insurance money as match funding for the project. Will my right hon. Friend look at the project to see what can be done to help re-establish community sports facilities again at that school?

Richard Caborn: I understand the problem that my hon. Friend has set before the House. As for lottery funds and insurance, insurance is paid to rebuild facilities; if there is an enhancement of the facilities, that would qualify for lottery money. The school would therefore have to revisit its application and, in doing so, I hope that it will get some sort of support.

John Greenway: How much longer will sports clubs in the north-east have to wait to get help with their rates bills, which are growing year after year? The promise of help was made by the Chancellor back in March. Friday's long-awaited further announcement promises yet more consultation, dither and delay. When will those clubs have a reduction in their tax bills and will local authorities be reimbursed for the cost?

Richard Caborn: We move from rates to tax. A consultation document on tax is out for consultation at present. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will make a statement to the House about the rate rebate structure, which I know has been a matter of concern to many sports clubs. I hope that in the not-too-distant future, we will be able to deal with the taxation problem in the light of the consultation document and the pre-Budget statement, and that the restructuring of local government finance will enable us to address the issue of mandatory rate relief for sports clubs.

Stephen Hepburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the fastest-growing community sports in the north-east is mini-football? Will he join me in thanking all the volunteers and parents who, every week, organise thousands of youngsters from seven to12 years old in organised leagues? Will my right hon. Friend give his support to the two local sports clubs in my constituency, at Perth green and Monkton stadium, which are bidding for centre of excellence status?

Richard Caborn: Certainly. There are many good things going on in the north-east, and mini-football is one which I personally support. There is a good development at Durham university led by Peter Warburton, the director of sports. It is probably the best example of the development of multi-sports clubs around an academic institution. Hon. Members and anyone outside the House who wants to see the development of sport from the grass roots to excellence should look at Durham university,with which our director of Sport England in the north-east is working closely. That example should be followed in many other areas.

Tourism

Chris Pond: What action she has taken to help the tourism industry in the United Kingdom since 11 September.

Tessa Jowell: I have asked the British Tourist Authority to redeploy funds to help the recovery of inbound tourism. In response, the BTA has announced a new£5 million international marketing campaign for 2002, which will focus on Britain's key strengths. I have also agreed that the London Tourist Board can switch £500,000 from overseas marketing and promotion to domestic or near-European marketing.

Chris Pond: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. She will know that, as the place where Dickens lived and Pocahontas died, Gravesend is something of a tourism hot-spot nowadays. Is she aware that in the past few days we have heard news that the historic ferry service in Gravesend is to be saved? Does she agree that tourism has a vital role to play in economic regeneration and the creation of employment? Can she give an assurance that she will continue to focus her Department's attention on giving every support possible to that vital part of our economy, to ensure that we can continue to build prosperity in areas such as mine?

Tessa Jowell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the efforts that he has made on behalf of his constituency. Gravesend recently won an award for town centre regeneration. He is right about the role of tourism in promoting economic growth. One of the areas in which new jobs are increasing fastest is the hospitality sector; about one in 14 people work in tourism. The Government must ensure that all possible help is provided to ensure raised standards and therefore better value for tourists across the sector, and investment in skills to improve the quality of service and recruitment to a vital industry.

Nick Harvey: I welcome the money to which the Secretary of State referred. Does she agree that in today's advertising market £5 million does not go very far, in the light of the trouble that the tourism industry has had this year? If the review to which the Minister with responsibility for tourism referred decides that the English Tourism Council should have a marketing budget restored to it, will the Secretary of State take steps to ensure that it has similar sums at its disposal to those available in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? The English Tourism Council is getting 22p a head, compared with £5.08 in Scotland, £5.31 in Wales and £8.18 in Northern Ireland. Given the problems that the tourism industry has had this year, does the right hon. Lady recognise the urgent need to get money through to the ETC now?

Tessa Jowell: First, on the question of the money spent on marketing in England, as opposed to Scotland and Wales, the yield in terms of overseas visitor income is by far the greatest in England. The hon. Gentleman made a crucial point about the importance of a sustained marketing campaign. The British Tourist Authority has had £14 million extra to spend on tourism and the results of that money post foot and mouth were beginning to show in August, when the number of in-bound tourists from the United States was about the same as it was last August. Obviously, the transatlantic tourism industry has suffered a devastating blow since 11 September, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary are working closely with the tourism bodies and the industry generally in order to take all necessary steps to assist its speedy recovery.

Claire Ward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the key attractions for tourism is the British film industry, especially with the current success of "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone", which was filmed in various locations around the country, including my constituency? Will she take this opportunity to give her support to the British film industry and do all that she can to promote it, to ensure that we reap the benefits not only from that industry, but from the associated tourism?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance and potential of the film industry's role in promoting tourism. Everybody is basking in the success of "Harry Potter". My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for tourism was last week in America and Canada, where precisely the same point was made about the attraction of the British film industry to visiting American tourists.

Anne McIntosh: The Secretary of State referred to redeploying money that had already been allocated. Does she agree that the tourism industry is very much in need of help, but her Government have increased the regulatory burden on businesses? Will she endeavour to avoid duplication by the various agencies that are spending the taxpayers' money to which she referred—the regional development boards, the regional tourism boards and local authorities—and when will she establish the marketing role that she envisages for the English Tourism Council?

Tessa Jowell: The answer to the first three questions is yes, yes and yes. We are in discussion with the industry about the ways in which deregulation might be extended. What is absolutely clear is that any further Government investment and any deregulation have to be matched by improved value for the tourist. On the hon. Lady's last point, we are in discussion with the English Tourism Council. We have asked it to take on a short-term responsibility to assist in the marketing of England. Those discussions are under way, but the longer-term role of the ETC is a matter for longer reflection in conjunction with the British Tourist Authority.

Ofcom

Derek Wyatt: What role Ofcom will play in the governance of the BBC.

Kim Howells: In relation to the BBC, Ofcom will set and monitor standards and quantifiable quotas and targets, much as it will do for all public sector broadcasters. The BBC governors will remain responsible for regulating the impartiality requirements and for the delivery of the corporation's overall remit.

Derek Wyatt: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. What we do not understand, at least on this side of the House, is that if the BBC takes a position in ITV Digital and continues with the most successful website in the world, those activities will cover the whole of broadcasting in broadband, so why should the governors retain a specific interest on their own? Surely, we want a level playing field and Ofcom should provide it.

Kim Howells: My hon. Friend makes a good point. As a former distinguished England winger, he is used to taking positions on sides—usually offside, as I remember. I do not disagree with him; indeed, Ofcom will have an important part to play in the commercial activities that the BBC undertakes. Streaming images across the internet is an expensive, highly competitive business. I expect Ofcom, as well as the competition authorities, to play a large part in determining the future shape of such a service.

Michael Fabricant: That was a charming answer from a charming Minister, but he did not answer the point that the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) made. Either the Government trust the BBC and distrust the commercial sector or Ofcom should have the same powers over the BBC as it has over the commercial sector. What is the reason for the imbalance?

Kim Howells: The spectrum of public service broadcasters ranges from the BBC to Channel 5, which is mainly a commercial operation but has a small public service responsibility. It is difficult to assume that regulation should be the same for a broadcaster with a small public service remit as for that with an entirely public service remit.
	I shall reiterate the earlier comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Parts of the BBC's remit will be profoundly affected by Ofcom's regulatory activities in future. However, we must maintain a clear perspective. Throughout the world, the BBC is considered the best single broadcaster, which makes the best programmes. We either want such a public service broadcaster or we turn it over to the market. If the Conservative party supports that, that is fair enough.

Peter Kilfoyle: While my hon. Friend is considering Ofcom and the way in which it will affect the BBC, will he also urge it to consider the governance of ITV, given the comments of Jon Snow on the appalling deterioration in the quality and quantity of the current affairs and news coverage on offer in the independent sector?

Kim Howells: Loth though I am to disagree with my hon. Friend, who has long been a good ally, it would be a sad day when the House attempted to determine the content of television. Most politicians never watch it. They pontificate about it endlessly, but they are lucky if they turn on "Newsnight" last thing at night before they crash out. I do not believe that we are the best judges of what constitutes proper television. Although I regard Jon Snow highly, neither he nor anyone else has a monopoly on wisdom. Broadcasters should determine the content of television. We have a good broadcasting system, we make good news programmes and we have a good news service. Long may that continue.

Tim Yeo: It is clear that the Minister is dithering about how far Ofcom should regulate the BBC. His explanation of why it should not totally regulate it is inadequate and based on groundless assertions. The same dithering was apparent last week when the Government published their consultation paper on media ownership and failed to take the opportunity to relax Britain's outdated media ownership rules. Are the Government also dithering about the date for digital switchover?

Kim Howells: Certainly not; we are consulting about important issues. Parties on both sides of the House should ensure that our conclusions are sound. There will be a long debate on the matter because the communications Bill will be one of the most important that we shall consider. We need to hear the views of industry and everyone involved in broadcasting before we make a decision that we could otherwise regret later.

Tim Yeo: That was a long way of saying yes, the Government are dithering. Does the Minister understand that, of the thousands of television sets that will be bought this Christmas, more than nine out of 10 will be analogue sets? Does he realise that refusing to give a lead on the crucial issue of digital switchover means that families up and down Britain will be in the dark about whetherthey are spending their precious money on obsolete equipment?

Kim Howells: I realise that the Conservatives have been out of power for well over four years, and that they probably do not know what is going on. They do not seem to read the newspapers or follow the news. We have been taking a strong lead on digital switchover. We have declared that it will take place and we are trying, with the co-operation of the industry, to ensure that it is done properly and as swiftly as possible. What we are not going to do is disfranchise large numbers of people. The only party that has ever dithered on this issue is the party that was originally afraid to tackle it: the Conservative party. We will drive forward this project, and we will be the first country in the world to have properly digitised television broadcasting.

Museums and Galleries (Entry Charges)

Brian Sedgemore: How many national museums have free entry.

Tessa Jowell: Seventeen museums and galleries sponsored by my Department now offer free admission to their main sites and to 16 of their branches. This policy took effect on Saturday 1 December. It represents the delivery of a key element of our manifesto commitment, and I would like to take this opportunity to place on record the Government's tribute to my predecessor,my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who devised this policy and steered it through, but moved on—or was moved on—just before it was fully implemented. This policy is his triumph.

Brian Sedgemore: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the abolition of museum charges means that new Labour is to shed its artistic philistinism in favour of cultural renaissance, we shall all be very pleased? Will she give us an assurance that this change is not temporary, just for one or two Parliaments, but permanent, and that the funding for it will be in place? Will she also tell us what she is going to do about the museums at the universities?

Tessa Jowell: This commitment is intended to last. It is important for a range of reasons, and one of the most important has been borne out by the fact that across London, where there are many large museums and galleries, there have been enormous increases in the numbers of visitors. Twice the usual number are visiting the Victoria and Albert museum; five times the usual number are going to the museum of London. This is promoting access to anyone who wants to go and enjoy the great cultural treasures of our country. That pleasure belongs to everybody, and this policy makes it possible for it to be enjoyed by everybody.

Betty Williams: How many(a) children and (b) pensioners made free entry visits to national museums and galleries during the last summer school holidays.

Tessa Jowell: The free entry for children visiting museums and galleries took effect from April 1999. During the last summer holidays, more than 1.2 million children and 600,000 people aged 60 and over visited those museums and galleries sponsored by my Department.

Betty Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures demonstrate the interest shown by young and old people in the cultural assets of the nation, and that they are a foretaste of the future in which a large number of museums and galleries will be free for all? Is not that thanks to this Labour Government?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend and wholeheartedly agree with her. Her point is well underlined by the further increase in the number of children visiting museums and galleries this weekend with their families, because their parents are now able to enjoy entry free of charge.

Barry Gardiner: I am not sure whether I ought to declare an interest. I suspect that a fair number of those 1.2 million visits were made by my four children, many times over, to different galleries.
	This is one of the greatest achievements, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the impetus provided by her Department. Will she continue to bear it in mind that Labour is about delivering not just galleries and museums but British culture as a whole to the many, not the few?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend. It should be remembered that, whereas under Labour attendance at museums and galleries by children, older people and, now, families has increased, under the Conservative Government—who reintroduced charges—family attendance fell. We believe in access for all to the excellence that belongs to the nation, not privilege for a few, which was the message and the practice of the Conservative Government.

Music (Licensed Premises)

Kelvin Hopkins: When she will introduce legislation to abolish the restrictions on the numbers of musicians permitted to play together in licensed premises.

Kim Howells: We intend to present a Bill to reform and modernise the alcohol and public entertainment licensing laws as soon as parliamentary time permits. However, there is no current restriction on the number of musicians who may play together in licensed premises if the licensee has first obtained an appropriate public entertainment licence. I am aware that obtaining such licences can be a prohibitively expensive business in some local authority areas, because of the attitude of those authorities.

Kelvin Hopkins: Many thousands of part-time and professional musicians who wish to play and entertain in pubs and restaurants, and millions who wish to listen to them, find that that is not possible because of the current restriction—the two-in-a-bar rule. Is it not nonsensical that a quiet jazz piano trio or a string quartet may not play in such premises, while a loud karaoke machine or discotheque may operate in them?

Kim Howells: I entirely agree. We want to make licensing a much simpler, less bureaucratic and cheaper process, so that there is no deterrent to seeking the appropriate licences. It is obvious that the legislation badly needs to be updated: it dates back to the mid-1960s, when I suppose an acoustic-guitar folk trio made a good deal less noise than one person with a loud amplifier.

Crispin Blunt: If the legislation needs updating so badly, and given that legislation modernising licensing laws was promised to the electorate in the Labour party manifesto, why did that proposed legislation not appear in the Queen's Speech?

Kim Howells: Because this Government were elected to improve public services. Those were the Government's priorities, as we made very clear, and they are the priorities that we have stuck to in our legislative programme. We hope very much that there will be space for a Bill allowing us to make these reforms, and that it will be announced in the next Queen's Speech.

Tony Banks: Are we not living in a much nicer world when we can listen to music rather than having to face the music, as we have to here from time to time?
	Will my hon. Friend look again at the restrictions on buskers on the underground and at British Rail stations? They add to the enjoyment and gaiety of life, but so often they are moved on. Can we not view the situation in a proper way, so that the buskers can earn their living and we can all enjoy their performances?

Kim Howells: I do not believe that that would be part of a reform of licensing Bill, but it is an interesting thought. Some extremely dreary public places are enlivened by the activities of buskers.

David Heath: Is it not ridiculous that, in the unlikely event of Michael Jackson and Madonna teaming up to do a gig down the local pub, they could so, yet three people singing Somerset folk songs would not be able to do so? Does the Minister not recognise that live music in pubs and inns has the potential to make a major contribution to tourism in rural areas, which we have already said we want to promote?

Kim Howells: We are straying into very dangerous territory. For a simple urban boy such as me, the idea of listening to three Somerset folk singers sounds like hell. Having said that, the hon. Gentleman is right: music does enliven many pubs and restaurants. It should thrive. Silly rules are preventing it from doing so.

Lottery Funding (Coalfield Communities)

Chris Bryant: What recent assessment her Department has made of the ability of former coalfield communities to attract lotterygrants.

Richard Caborn: My Department published the report entitled "Fair Distribution of Lottery Funding to Coalfields and Other Areas" on 6 November 2001. It shows that, following the National Lottery Act 1998, revised policy directions and recent coalfield initiatives by the Government and distributors, the coalfields share of lottery money has increased from 45 per cent. of the average per capita to 60 per cent. We hope to see further improvements and shall continue to monitor awards in coalfield areas closely.

Chris Bryant: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but the fact that the share is only 60 per cent. of the average per capita shows that there is still a significant amount of work to do to ensure that people from former coalfield communities have an equal opportunity to obtain funding for projects that they support. Is not the system still too complicated? It does not feel as though it is geared towards ordinary people. Will he assure the House that everything will be done to ensure that organisations such as Ferndale boys club, Abergorki hall and Parc and Dare theatre in my constituency have an opportunity to obtain the support that they need to have a chance of success? Will he take the opportunity to congratulate the Cory junior band on receiving a grant recently to buy new musical instruments?

Richard Caborn: I am advised by my hon. Friend the Under–Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport that that is an extremely good band. Our congratulations go to it on achieving that award. I hope that what my hon. Friend has said will start to happen, and that the procedures are being modified, refined and made simpler. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will make an announcement before the recess about fair distribution and targeting funds to more deprived communities. Again, I hope that that is another move in the right direction to ensure that the lottery is distributed fairly and simply.

Julian Lewis: Would more lottery funds be available to former coalfield communities if the Government had not insisted on raiding those funds to finance health service and other activities that should be paid for out of central Government funds?

Richard Caborn: I do not accept that. There has always been a strong voluntary sector in many areas of our public services. Indeed, they bring a quality that would not be provided just by the state. I think that that has been universally accepted throughout the country.

European City of Culture

Kevin Brennan: What progress she has made towards appointing the advisory group on choosing the European City of Culture 2008; and if she will make a statement.

Tessa Jowell: We are giving careful consideration to nominations and applications received for membership of the advisory panel, together with names identified from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Cabinet Office public appointments databases. We expect to make an announcement about the membership of the panel early next year.

Kevin Brennan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will she acknowledge the growing recognition of Cardiff in Europe and beyond as a capital city capable of hosting major sporting events such as the rugby world cup, the Network Q UK rally, even the English FA cup final, and political events such as the European intergovernmental conference and the next Labour party spring conference? Will she acknowledge that Cardiff is capable of holding those major events and now could be the right time to give it a chance to host a major cultural event and be the European City of Culture?

Tessa Jowell: I certainly recognise my hon. Friend's passionate advocacy of Cardiff.

Obesity

David Kidney: What contribution her Department makes to promoting a reduction in levels of obesity.

Richard Caborn: My Department accepts that physical activity has an important role to play in combating the prevalence of obesity. We are committed to increasing the number and quantity of opportunities for participation in sport and physical activity by all sectors of the community and to working closely with other Departments to help achieve those objectives.

David Kidney: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he accept that, perhaps with the exception of hon. Members, the country is getting fatter and that that is unhealthy? On a serious note, does he accept the Department's responsibility for promoting the health benefits of physical activity, and does he agree that that should include providing an attractive range of activities for young people and older people at convenient places and prices?

Richard Caborn: I do. As someone who ran a local 10 km run yesterday—I did not quite beat the 60-minute target, but I made it in 60 minutes and 10 seconds—I fully agree with my hon. Friend's comments. My Department has established a monthly ministerial meeting of Ministers from the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office to consider sports issues and how to deliver other Departments' agendas. I believe that we can make an impact on the issue, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that sport has a very important role to play in addressing it. The education White Paper's commitment to two hours per week of PE and sport for every child in primary school and right through secondary school is another major step in that direction.

Bob Russell: Will the Minister confirm, however, that 75 per cent. of our young people do not have two hours of physical eduction per week within the school curriculum, and that the White Paper does not properly address that issue? If those two hours are not brought within the curriculum, obesity levels will increase, not decline.

Richard Caborn: As the hon. Gentleman will know, and as the Prime Minister has said, the Government are mindful of the need to try to ensure two hours a week of physical education in primary and secondary school. Indeed, a couple of weeks ago, at a meeting with various people in education, the Prime Minister specifically made the point that it is a matter not only of incorporating that time in the curriculum, which could be done in many ways, but of ensuring that we rebuild out-of-school activities and the linkages to clubs. It is a very important objective that I as the Minister for Sport plan to accomplish with my colleagues in education and health.

James Purnell: Does the Minister agree that cricket is a particularly good way of tackling obesity, particularly now that it is a much more physical game than it was? Is he aware that Staley cricket club in my constituency, which provides exceptional out-of-school activities for dozens of young people, is under threat because of local property redevelopment? Will he join me in urging the council, the Cricket Foundation and local businesses to do everything that they can to preserve the future of Staley cricket club, so that it can continue to tackle obesity in my constituency?

Richard Caborn: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's comments. I cannot become involved in specific planning applications, but I understand his concern and hope that the matter will be viewed in a very positive light. Indeed, in 1997, we changed the planning rules to ensure that the number of closures of public sector sports facilities decreased considerably from the appalling number that we inherited from the previous Administration. If we are to address some of the issues of obesity raised in the White Paper, it is very important that we increase the number of sports facilities. Consequently, £600 million is to be invested in new sports facilities across the country under the new opportunities fund for PE and sport.

Sports Tourism

Brian Jenkins: What assessment she has made of the state of sports tourism in this country; and what proposals she has to increase it.

Richard Caborn: Sports tourism is estimated to be worth around£2.5 billion annually. This year, for the first time, the Office for National Statistics is researching sports tourism to provide a clearer picture of its value. The British Tourist Authority's sports tourism team works hard to promote sports tourism. Sport, and particularly the Commonwealth games, forms a cornerstone of the BTA's 2002 marketing campaign.

Brian Jenkins: I welcome that answer, but will my right hon. Friend explain why so many people in sport do not believe that the Government have taken it seriously enough to expand the industry? It seems that the Government think of sport as a game of football or cricket and do not recognise its wealth creation and revenue generation impact as an industry for this country. What proposals does he have to ensure that people understand that the Government recognise sport as an industry?

Richard Caborn: I could not agree more. For the six months for which I have held this job I have consistently said that sport is not just an end in itself but a means to many ends. It is about social inclusion, wealth creation and regeneration, which I will be speaking about tomorrow. It is a tremendous medium through which we can affect many parts of our country's life and, indeed, deliver many of our Departments' programmes. We discussed a health initiative on an earlier question.
	The people involved in the BTA advertising campaign include David Beckham, Michael Owen, Judi Dench, Steven Redgrave, Tim Henman, Nasser Hussain and Jamie Oliver. That shows that there is support across the board for such development.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Church Estate (London)

Chris Bryant: What recent valuation the Church Commissioners have made of the value of their property portfolio in London.

Stuart Bell: The latest published valuations as at 31 December 2000 are in the commissioners last annual report, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

Chris Bryant: Does No. 1 Millbank still belong to the Church Commissioners? If so, would not it make more sense, considering the fact that many Members of Parliament still do not have a full office, to sell the building to the Parliamentary Estate?

Stuart Bell: It is an excellent building and would certainly command a great deal of money on the open market. Let me help my hon. Friend by saying that part of No. 1 Millbank has already been let to Members of the other place.

Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give a more specific answer on the value of the assets in London? We do not all have the annual report to hand. [Interruption.] I challenge anyone to produce a copy. How does the Church, with all its wealth, justify its decision that means that there will be far fewer affordable homes for tenants to rent and many more market-value properties? How does that square with the relief of poverty and the social obligations of the Church? Can an explanation be placed in the Library for what appears to be a completely unjust and unfair decision?

Stuart Bell: That seemed to be at least four questions in one. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the annual report, he will find a full valuation of our property portfolios—agricultural, residential and commercial—and the percentages for our various values and where we have invested. He will also find a list of the 20 most important values at the back of the report.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to Octavia Hill estates. I am sure that he will be interested to learn that the Church Commissioners are forgoing £51 million in income over 15 years by not charging full market rents where they are free to do so.

Employment Rights (Clergy)

Laura Moffatt: If he will make a statement on progress on the financial implications of the Department of Trade and Industry discussion paper on extending employment rights under the Employment Relations Act 1999 to members of the clergy.

Stuart Bell: It is always a pleasure to respond on behalf of other Departments. In the case of the DTI, however, the discussion paper is still awaited.

Laura Moffatt: I understand why my hon. Friend finds it difficult to answer on behalf of the DTI, but many of my hon. Friends are very concerned about the issue. We strive to achieve good employment relations on behalf of many workers and see no reason why the clergy should be left out. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time to get on with the report and to respond quickly on behalf of those workers?

Stuart Bell: I certainly encourage questions on that subject on the Floor of the House and I am glad to see that many of my hon. Friends have raised the issue before. The Archbishops Council has set up a group that is exploring what can and should be done to give clergy the rights they could and should expect if they were employees, and I will draw my hon. Friend's question to the council's attention.

Poverty

Norman Baker: What provision he makes within Church accounts for the relief of poverty.

Stuart Bell: May I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to Church Commissioners Question Time and congratulate him on his post-election appointment to the Front Bench?
	In 2000, the Church Commissioners made £17.5 million available in grants for parish ministry support, of which £14.9 million was targeted on the neediest dioceses.

Norman Baker: I am interested in that answer. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman feels that the Church Commissioners could navigate their way through the eye of a needle, but when we have so many poor and homeless people I wonder whether the Church ought not to divest some of its assets—such as No. 1 Millbank, which is a prime piece of property, bang in the middle of London and worth a great deal of money—sell some of the bishops' palaces, and pay less attention to wine cellars and more to scripture.

Stuart Bell: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's mixed metaphor about navigating through the eye of a needle, but he will be pleased to learn that, in addition to the amount I mentioned, the commissioners are making an additional one-off sum, totalling £10 million, available to the Archbishops Council for distribution to dioceses in 2002-04. The money will be offered to all dioceses, with a bias towards the poorest.
	As No. 1 Millbank seems to be the topic of the day, I can tell hon. Members that the renovation of the building has been completed and the commissioners will move back on 7 December.

Caroline Flint: One aspect of alleviating poverty is the provision of good child care and family support. What is the Church doing to support child care partnerships, and is it putting money into community activities to develop child care for the lowest-income families?

Stuart Bell: Each diocese has a child protection policy that is based on a national Church policy and expertise to advise parishes and deal with difficult cases. The dioceses have recently received extensive advice about the new Criminal Records Bureau, including how to process disclosures through the dioceses, so that there is a competent risk assessment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue on the Floor of the House.

House of Lords (Reform)

Michael Fabricant: What responses the Church Commissioners have (a) received and (b) made in respect of the Government's Command Paper, "The House of Lords—Completing the Reform"; and if he will make a statement.

Stuart Bell: If I may make a statement first, I should say that the Church of England believes that there ought to be a minimum of 20 bishops in a reformed House of Lords in order to offer effective parliamentary service.
	In relation to (a) and (b) of the hon. Gentleman's question, the Church has received the Government's Command Paper and is of course giving it careful consideration along the lines of my statement.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that statement. He will understand that in Lichfield, as in the rest of the country, there is considerable concern about the Command Paper, over and above the fact that its proposals hardly constitute democratic reform of the House of Lords. Does he share my concern about paragraph 83, which suggests that the Church of England's representation should be reduced to 16? He said in his statement that he would like it to be increased to at least 20, but will that definitely include the Lord Bishop of Lichfield?

Stuart Bell: I would hesitate to intrude on the work of the appointment secretary of a future Archbishop, but I am sure that the Bishop of Lichfield will not be far behind. We have 26 bishops in the upper House at the moment. The number may be reduced, but we are also keen to see the representation of other denominations and faiths strengthened in the upper House.

Peter Pike: Is not my hon. Friend's last point the most important one? If the Church of England is to have representation in the other House, other Christian churches and other faiths should have equal representation in 2001 and in the years ahead, rather than the situation that has existed for many years.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. It is especially important, following recent tragic events, that forums are developed in which complex and sensitive matters to do with relations between faith communities and their place in modern society can be aired and debated in a measured and well-informed manner. My hon. Friend's suggestion is in line with that supposition.

Clergy Pay

Lindsay Hoyle: What recent representations the commissioners have received from trade unions on clergy pay.

Stuart Bell: The Church's representatives regularly meet representatives of the Manufacturing, Science and Finance union.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the report commissioned by the MSF into the poverty suffered by the clergy. One in 10 of the clergy live in poverty: what are the Church Commissioners going to do about it?

Stuart Bell: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the clergy stipends review group has made several recommendations, including increasing the clergy stipend from the current amount of £16,910 to £20,000. Those recommendations are out for consultation in the wider Church and my hon. Friend's point will be taken into account.

Points of Order

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for your guidance, assistance and, indeed—as a Back Bencher—even your protection.
	In the business statement last Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced as business for today:
	"Opposition Day . . . until 7 o'clock on a subject on which we have yet to be notified. Followed by a debate entitled 'The Government's Mismanagement of Wembley Stadium, Pickett's Lock and the Dome', also on an Opposition motion."—[Official Report, 29 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 1103.]
	That having been announced by the Leader of the House, you may recall, Mr. Speaker, that I wrote to you asking if I could catch your eye during the debate on Wembley stadium, Picketts Lock and the dome. Then, no doubt like a considerable number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, I began to prepare for that debate.
	I walked into the House today and picked up the Order Paper so as to ascertain the exact terms of the Opposition motion on that matter only to discover that there was no Opposition motion on it. I therefore made inquiries and found that the Opposition had been in a state of flux over the matter before and since last Thursday, and that they did not in fact decide the issue that they wanted to raise today until six minutes before the House rose on Friday.
	I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, because it is my understanding that the business of the House must be as announced by the Leader of the House unless the Leader of the House makes an additional, further, later business statement. Indeed, I held a discussion with my right hon. Friend about the business that he had announced for the following week in which he said that he would have to make a business statement—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's point of order is a bit long. Perhaps he would like to come to a conclusion.

Gerald Kaufman: I would love to come to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker, but this is a point of order and, that being so, I regard it as my duty to provide the information appropriate for you to be able to give a measured reply. There has—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a measured reply.

Gerald Kaufman: In that case, sir, you cannot object to a measured point of order.
	There was no further business statement today, Mr. Speaker. Now, I do not ask you, sir, to try to bring some order to the rabble on the Opposition Benches—that would be beyond both the United Nations and the SAS—but I ask you to tell us what is the position of Back-Bench Members of the House who come to take part in a debate that has already been announced, when the Opposition are in such a state of ungovernable confusion that the business is changed with no notification.

Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you will agree that it is essential for the proper working of the House that we have a sensible balance between spontaneity and predictability. I am sure you will further agree that, from time to time, that balance comes under pressure; but I hope that in considering this issue—as you ever do, Mr. Speaker—you and other right hon. and hon. Members will realise that, perhaps in the Opposition's genuine effort to make the proceedings of the House as current, contemporaneous and spontaneous as possible, the Government may be taken by surprise every now and then.
	I will certainly want to reflect, along with my colleagues, on the point that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) makes because there is some substance in what he says, but I know that you will be generous enough, Mr. Speaker—I hope that House will be, too—to accept that it is not necessarily a bad thing if we err on the side of spontaneity at the cost of predictability every now and then.

Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will hear the hon. Gentleman and then I will reply to the original point of order—otherwise I might forget it.

Paul Tyler: You will have noted, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative party's replacement motion refers to events on Tuesday and Wednesday last week. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) claims spontaneity and topicality, but there is clearly a very curious use of the word "spontaneity" if it took from the middle of the afternoon on Tuesday or Wednesday until six minutes before 3 o'clock on Friday to decide on the motion. If Conservative Members really wanted a topical motion, they should have chosen one on the crisis in the middle east.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that it is for the general convenience of Members and assists in the orderly dispatch of our business if, in normal circumstances, Members who wish to table motions to which amendments may be expected do so, to use a familiar Scottish expression, timeously. I believe that that should be the general practice of the House, applicable to Government and Opposition alike. As hon. Members will know, I have selected a manuscript amendment to the second Opposition motion today.

Stephen Pound: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is not further to that matter.

Stephen Pound: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have heard enough on that point of order.

Michael Fabricant: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is it is a new point of order?

Michael Fabricant: Not exactly.

Ann Widdecombe: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the right hon. Lady wants to continue the argument.

Ann Widdecombe: Very loosely. Mr. Speaker, will you confirm that it is not without precedent for Government and Opposition occasionally to change the business at the last moment, that you and I can recall an occasion when an amendment was withdrawn just minutes before a debate under the last Government and that, therefore, such things are not unprecedented?

Mr. Speaker: It happens, but no one should make a habit of it.

Angela Browning: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding your good advice to the House on this matter, will you confirm that no rule of the House has been broken by the official Opposition?

Mr. Speaker: Of course.

Barry Gardiner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a serious discourtesy to you and other hon. Members, who spend many hours preparing for such debates, for Her Majesty's loyal Opposition to chop and change their minds like a butterfly with a frontal lobotomy?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Michael Fabricant: Would it be of benefit to the House, Mr. Speaker—to older right hon. Members as well as to young whippersnappers—to note that page 918 of the Order Paper shows that the speeches that they have prepared can be used on Tuesday 11 December?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[6th Allotted Day]

Dissemination of Information

Tim Collins: I beg to move,
	That this House condemns the repeated instances of inadequate or incomplete records of meetings and conversations involving Ministers since 1997; deplores the culture of secrecy and inefficiency evident in the Government's failure to answer Parliamentary Questions or correspondence adequately and promptly; deprecates the pursuit of cynical news management strategies in all Departments, but notably in the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions; and urges the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to change his approach to informing this House and the public.
	Let me make it clear at the outset that the Opposition have no criticism whatever of a certain absence on the Government Front Bench. I refer, of course, to the Deputy Prime Minister, who is not present today to defend the record of the Cabinet Office or of the Government's policies with regard to the civil service, for the perfectly legitimate reason that the right hon. Gentleman is on an official trip overseas which was arranged several days ago, and he graciously wrote to me about it some time ago. However, we find it simply breathtaking that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions should have refused point blank to come to the Chamber to debate a motion that is specifically and personally critical of him. In all the annals of arrogance for which the Government and that Secretary of State have become notorious, this utter display of contempt for Parliament bulks large.
	We gather that the Secretary of State's more pressing engagement was a minibus tour of a new bridge on Tyneside. We learned on "The World at One" today—

Mike Hall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions as being in contempt of this Parliament?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is making a case during debate. It is up to any other Member to rebut that case.

Tim Collins: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) may have assumed that his intervention would find favour with the Government Whips Office and with No. 10 Downing street. I am sorry to say that he has further shattered what little political career he had.
	We learned today on "The World at One" from the BBC's much respected political editor, Andrew Marr, that the Secretary of State's behaviour on this matter has once again produced a lot of irritation in Downing street.

Chris Pond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Collins: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who I know has aspirations regarding ministerial office, I warn him not to try to defend the Secretary of State, because were he so to do he might find himself in trouble with No. 10. However, I am happy to give way to allow him to bury his career further if he wishes.

Chris Pond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Certain others of us in the House listened to "The World at One". Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to read into the record what was actually said by the BBC's political correspondent, which did not match what he has just told the House?

Tim Collins: Not only did I hear "The World at One", but, as the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, I appeared on it, so I am probably more in touch with what happened on it than he is.
	I simply say to the Secretary of State, who might actually read our proceedings some time this week—as that seems to be the only contribution that he will make to them—that it is here, not in Tyneside, that he should be building bridges. He needs to build a bridge with No. 10 Downing street. I will have a little more to say about his behaviour later.
	I have a declaration, not so much of interest but of past form. For two years, ending a decade ago, I was a special adviser in what were then the Department of the Environment and the Department of Employment. At that time, the only civil servant who answered to me was a secretary. For clarification, I should explain that that was a typing secretary, not a permanent secretary.
	In the 1992 election, I served as the press secretary to the then Prime Minister, as an employee of the Conservative party, not as a civil servant. [Interruption.] The Minister for Transport, the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), says that that was a great success. Yes, it was. In the 1992 election, the then Prime Minister secured not only more votes than any political leader in British history but 35 per cent. more votes than the right hon. Gentleman's leader got in June. So yes, it was rather successful, and I thank the Minister for allowing me to put that on the record.
	In those days, John Major invariably had a career civil servant as his press secretary outside general elections, and the utter political neutrality of the holders of those posts is demonstrated by the fact that two of them are now working as very senior and diligent servants of the present Administration. Indeed, one of them—Mr. Gus O'Donnell—is so highly regarded that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister recently became involved in a spat over who was to have his services.
	I should also make it clear that I was briefly a member of the Prime Minister's policy unit in Downing street. I do not believe that it was a case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc, but John Major resigned at the time to contest the leadership of the Conservative party. I immediately left my post to serve once more as his press secretary. Again for the benefit of the Minister for Transport, we won that particular campaign, for which I took unpaid leave for two weeks. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Gentlemen should not shout.

Tim Collins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	My reason for pointing that out is to make it clear that there was a time when there were clear dividing lines between what civil servants and political appointees could do. The Conservative party has always had a much clearer understanding than the Labour party of the difference between exercising a proper electoral mandate and riding roughshod over all rules of propriety. That issue is at the heart of the debate.
	The motion is in part about the Government's general failure to discharge their duties of accountability towards Parliament and in part about the specific problems that relate to the conduct of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Some of us do not know whether he has refused to come here today because he is too big headed, or because he knows that every time he comes before Parliament these days a serious allegation is made about the accuracy of his remarks. Perhaps he has concluded that he is physically incapable of providing the full facts to the House and that the only way he can avoid being caught out is to go into hiding. We look forward to the success of the media search parties in flushing him out.
	The motion starts by reminding us that last week's extraordinary saga of the censored minutes of a meeting featuring the Secretary of State and the chairman of Railtrack was not the first time that records have been inadequate, or perhaps even doctored, under this Administration since 1997. Let me take the House back to the days of the Ecclestone affair, which led the Prime Minister to race on to our televisions to tell us all that he is
	"a pretty straightforward kind of guy".
	I refer to that seminal tome "Servants of the People", the true story of new Labour, which I am sure has been on the reading lists of all my hon. Friends. Page 93 of that wonderful volume refers to the time in October 1997 when the tycoon Mr. Ecclestone was ushered into Downing street. Mr. Rawnsley refers to two errors that he believes the Prime Minister committed. He says:
	"Blair's first error was to have granted a privileged audience to a man who had given £1 million to his party and at a time, it would subsequently emerge, when the party was soliciting for more. The second mistake was to keep no formal minute of the meeting."
	A pattern begins to emerge.
	The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport reported only a few days ago on the conduct of the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport as it related to the wonderful triumph of the Government's policy on Wembley stadium and Picketts Lock. I did, of course, alert the office of the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that I would make a brief reference to this matter. On the £20 million agreement between the then Secretary of State and the Football Association, under which the FA was to return the sum to the Government, the Select Committee concluded:
	"This agreement—which after two years has yet to result in a single signed legal document, let alone a single penny being paid over—represents a scandalously inept treatment of public money."
	Indeed, we are told that agreement was reached by a handshake in the absence of any note or minute by an official. Again, a pattern begins to emerge.
	The pattern is also evident in the minutes of the meeting between the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the chairman of Railtrack. We have been told that officials were instructed at a particularly sensitive part of the meeting to put down their pens and not record what occurred. It is important to state for the record that the other party to that meeting, the chairman of Railtrack, cannot recall requesting that a part of the meeting should not be recorded. He also denies having said what Ministers subsequently alleged was said.
	I have spoken about the matter to many Privy Councillors on both sides of the House who have served as Ministers for a cumulative period of decades. They tell me that they cannot recall any instance of officials being instructed not to record a particularly sensitive part of a meeting. It simply beggars belief that the Secretary of State should rely for his defence, his credibility and his reputation for probity on the belief that his officials could be instructed to fail to do their duty in the normal manner.

Louise Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Collins: Of course; I shall be delighted to learn whether the hon. Lady defends the Secretary of State or comes in on the side of Downing street.

Louise Ellman: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the fact that, had Mr. Robinson said what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says he said—in other words, that Railtrack would be in serious trouble if the Government did not provide a letter of comfort or additional funding—Mr. Robinson would have been in breach of his fiduciary duties under company law? Does that not give him an excellent motive to disclaim what he said during that meeting?

Tim Collins: I am a little surprised to hear the hon. Lady say that. Like me, she regularly uses the west coast main line, so she will know that far from having improved on that line since the Secretary of State acted, things have become a great deal worse. On her specific point, if it is her contention that she has evidence that leads her to believe that she is justified in making a serious allegation about a board director of a FTSE-100 company deliberately behaving as she describes, I challenge her to repeat her remarks outside the House, where she does not have legal protection for doing so. We look forward to finding out whether she is willing to do that.
	I was speaking about the state of the railways under the current Administration. That is at the heart of our concerns. The incompetence, lack of probity and lack of candour of the current Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is not of interest solely to people in the Westminster village: it has serious implications for the state of our railways, their safety and their reliability. We learned last week that since the right hon. Gentleman acted, in his own words, "against Railtrack"—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. The House should come to order.

David Maclean: Deliberate wrecking.

Tim Collins: My right hon. Friend says that deliberate wrecking is going on. There has certainly been deliberate wrecking of the railway industry by the Labour party. I shall provide the proof.
	In the two months since the Secretary of State acted "against Railtrack"—a significant choice of words by the right hon. Gentleman—and since he destroyed Railtrack and took responsibility for the network away from the company, what has occurred but a 45 per cent. increase in train delays caused by track and signal failures? The Rail Passengers Council describes that rise as particularly "alarming" because it came after a period of several months of improvement in performance. A leap from 3,300 hours per week total train delays attributed to infrastructure faults to 4,800 hours per week was reported last week. That sharp and alarming increase is occasioned by the fact that the morale of those working for Railtrack has been devastated by the Government's actions. It is specifically caused by the fact that many senior employees of Railtrack are considering their future: 70 key employees have already left.
	In their 10-year transport plan, the Government said that they would rely heavily on private sector investment to improve rail infrastructure, as people of all parties want. However, they should recognise that they have devastated their reputation and the prospects of investment in the rail industry in the eyes of investors around the world. In a letter to the United States embassy in London, quoted in The Sunday Times yesterday, the Minnesota State Board of Investment expresses
	"outrage at recent actions by the UK government."
	It adds:
	"This action displays a remarkable lack of judgment and foresight on the part of the UK government."
	That is part of a pattern. Again and again the Government claim that they are taking action to improve the railways, but they are in fact making matters far worse. Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, including the shadow Chief Whip, many Government Members and our constituents depend on the west coast main line.
	What has been the result of the Government's action on Railtrack? Phase two of that project has been cancelled and phase one postponed for at least a year. The prospect of getting a quality service—

Louise Ellman: rose—

Tim Collins: I am not going to give way to the hon. Lady again. Perhaps she should go off and use the west coast main line; she could go up to her constituency, where she might be in a better position.

Stephen Pound: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Those of us who are desperately trying to come to terms with the organisation of the House are rather confused by the way the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) is moving away from the subject. Could you advise the House, Mr. Speaker, whether the subject being debated is the west coast main line or the dissemination of information?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) is in order; if he were out of order, I would have informed him.

Tim Collins: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. The motion, for Government Members who seem to need the benefit of the Government's literacy hour, refers to the conduct of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
	We have serious concerns about the lack of clarity on rail safety provisions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has been extremely successful in setting out a problematic lack of clarity about who is responsible for rail safety matters; again, that is a failure by the Secretary of State.

Norman Baker: Whatever the Government's failings in dealing with the rail crisis, is not the root cause the botched privatisation by the Conservative party?

Tim Collins: It is always a pleasure to hear from people who declare themselves to be the effective Opposition. On this subject, they invariably come to the defence of the Government; the hon. Gentleman has done it again. For the record, there were only two years in the 20th century in which nobody died on Britain's railways. Both occurred when Britain's railways were run by the private sector; one was before the first world war, the other was 1998. Although the railway safety record was certainly not good enough in the Railtrack years, it was a great deal better than it was in the state socialist era to which the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and his colleagues would like to return us. However, I am delighted that he intervened because—

Lindsay Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House. There has not been a year without a death on the railways.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale would not mislead the House. The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) should withdraw his remark.

Lindsay Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman made a statement that was not factual, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale might say that he is not deliberately misleading the House. Is that what the hon. Member for Chorley is suggesting?

Lindsay Hoyle: I am indeed. I take that advice, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his earlier remark.

Lindsay Hoyle: I withdraw. The hon. Gentleman may not have deliberately misled the House, but the statement was inaccurate.

Mr. Speaker: Withdraw the remark; that is the best thing.

Lindsay Hoyle: It is still not factual.

Mr. Speaker: Facts are something that I have no control over.
	The title of the motion is about information, and we should not concentrate our remarks solely on Railtrack, as seems to be happening.

Tim Collins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The next part of my speech relates precisely to the Government's failure properly to report to the House and provide it with information on its proceedings. Indeed, there have been increasing delays in responses to parliamentary correspondence and parliamentary questions, as was established by the diligent research of my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).

Chris Grayling: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is tremendously important for the House to understand that there has been a consistent pattern of behaviour by the Department and the Secretary of State? They say one thing then, a few weeks later, admit that something different is true—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have given as strong a hint as possible to the hon. Gentleman, who should move on from that subject.

Tim Collins: Not only did my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford make progress in establishing those delays, but there was devastating and, indeed, unprecedented criticism of Ministers by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration following investigations instigated by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who managed to establish that the Government were withholding information from the House without any justification under the procedures or codes which should apply. My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that there is no precedent for the parliamentary ombudsman to be as critical as he was of the present Foreign Secretary, the former Home Secretary, for the Government's point-blank refusal to release information in the way set out under their own ministerial codes, as well as under the motions passed by the House.
	Yet again, Mr. Speaker, as you will have noted over the weekend, there was a further repetition of the constant pattern under the present Administration of serious announcements being made outside the House, rather than in the Chamber. In an interview in The Observer, the Home Secretary pretty much published the entire contents of his proposed White Paper on the police, some days before he is due to bring the matter before the House.
	The Government's dissemination of information has been hugely criticised by senior and entirely independent figures. I know that Labour Members are unlikely to be interested in the views of the chairman of Railtrack, but they might be interested to know that Jonathan Baume, the general secretary of the First Division Association of civil servants—a trade union; I can already see ears pricking up with excitement on the Government Benches—has called on Jo Moore, the well-known special adviser and side-kick of the Secretary of State to
	"stand to one side and let the professionals get on with the job".
	It is our contention that problems will continue to occur constantly with the running of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions until Ms Moore and the Secretary of State have stood aside.

Bill Rammell: rose—

Tim Collins: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. Before that, I shall give him an opportunity to reflect on what he intended to say. The strategic communications unit at No. 10, and a chap called Alastair Campbell, whom the hon. Gentleman may know is a little bit influential in his party, reprimanded the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for "contaminating"—that was the word—the pre-Budget statement by the way in which the Department reported the minutes of the famous meeting with the chairman of Railtrack. I look forward to the intervention from the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell). Will he come in on the side of the Secretary of State or of Mr. Campbell?

Bill Rammell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Did he read the letter in The Guardian on 10 October from a former Government press officer who related his experience under the last Conservative Government at the time of the Dunblane tragedy? He was instructed to release any bad news that day, as it would be buried in the following day's news coverage of events. Does not that demonstrate that instead of a serious concern for the conduct of government, we are hearing nothing but a hypocritical rant from the Opposition?

Tim Collins: The hon. Gentleman may be relieved to know that it was indeed one of the rare occasions when I read The Guardian letters page. He will recall that the person involved was an anonymous figure. In the two months that have passed since then, and despite frequent inquiries, we have never established even which Department that person allegedly worked in, let alone the substance behind the serious allegations that he made. We wait to hear what will happen.
	We know that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, whose conduct is rightly the subject of criticism in the motion, is in some difficulty. The headline in The Independent today states: "Blair 'growing worried' by Byers' performance". The Prime Minister has nothing to worry about with respect to the Secretary of State's performance in the House today, as he is not delivering a performance in the House today. We learn that Minister after Minister, official after official, Labour Back Bencher after Labour Back Bencher wants Ms Moore to go, wants the Secretary of State to accept that he is responsible for her conduct, and is deeply unhappy about the way his Department has provided information to the House and to the public.

John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend think that the worry of No. 10 is not just the botched news handling, but the fact that the Government announced in the pre-Budget statement £1 billion extra for health, and said nothing about the £2 billion-plus extra that they will have to provide for the railways, because they have made such a mess of it? Did not the Secretary of State overshadow the pre-Budget statement by raiding the till, as well as by his botched news handling?

Tim Collins: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. The escalating costs of the Government's decision on the matter are not the least reason for our grave concerns about them.
	The Secretary of State has one group of wholly loyal, absolutely staunch and unequivocal friends in the House. I refer, of course, to the party which is, in every sense, to our left—the Liberal Democrats. Many of us were highly amused—no doubt you were, too, Mr. Speaker—to read at the weekend that the Liberal Democrats were to call for the departure of Ms Jo Moore over the matters set out in the motion. Having read about that, I looked up the parliamentary record. What did the Liberal Democrats do when we last debated in the House a motion calling for the dismissal of Ms Moore, on 23 October? Very heroically, they abstained. What did they do when the House debated on 13 November a motion deploring the Secretary of State's conduct? They rode to his rescue and voted with the Government to save his neck. What did they do when the House of Lords last week inflicted the first defeat of this Parliament on the Government's Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill? They voted differently in the other place—they did not vote in the same way in this place—again in order to try to save the Government's neck, but they failed. What are they doing today? What does their proposed amendment to today's motion seek to do? It would accept the first 60 per cent. of the Conservative motion without alteration, but delete all references to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and all criticism of the Secretary of State.

Peter Kilfoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Collins: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I am sure that he is as affectionate towards the Liberal Democrats as I am, but I should like to finish my point.
	The Liberal Democrats call themselves the effective Opposition. In our crueller moments, we might wonder when their leader will get 45 minutes with the President of the United States. Perhaps we should not hold our breath in that connection, but we notice that if a party wants to be an effective Opposition it helps if it opposes the Government. I shall give way on that note.

Peter Kilfoyle: I do not want to intrude on a personal battle between the Opposition parties about which of them is pre-eminent.
	The hon. Gentleman has made much of what he sees as some sort of grand conspiracy in the Government, in which people are being told to be less than truthful on occasions. Will he remind me of the circumstances surrounding a previous Government with regard to the Peter Wright "Spycatcher" case? The then Government's representative was, by his own admission, economical with the truth. Was he economical with the truth at the order of No. 10, by his own volition or at the instigation of special advisers who were working in the Government at the time?

Tim Collins: The person to whom the hon. Gentleman refers was, of course, a career civil servant, so I do not think he is making the point that he thinks he is making.

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as he has just pointed out to the House very effectively the record of the Liberal party on this matter. Bearing in mind its votes in the past, can he explain why the leader of that party said last week on radio that both the Secretary of State and Ms Jo Moore should resign or be sacked?

Tim Collins: Like my hon. Friend, I am somewhat puzzled. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats will change their attitude and vote with the official Opposition tonight. Given the nature of the amendment that they have tabled, however, I rather doubt that they will do so.
	The final point that I want to make in response to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) is that I do not accuse the Government of running a grand conspiracy, as I think he called it. Our charge is that they are not capable of making the trains run on time, let alone of running a grand conspiracy. They are utterly hopeless at everything.
	This is a Secretary of State who has twisted and evaded, and rewritten the truth and hidden the facts time and again. He is someone who has moved at a snail's pace to answer questions, improve transport and raise safety standards on the railways. As long as the Prime Minister ignores all considerations of honesty and honour and keeps this man in office, this Secretary of State will, like a snail, produce a trail of slime leading across Downing street and right up to the door of No. 10.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark.

Tim Collins: Naturally, I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.
	In their conduct of parliamentary business, their approach to parliamentary questions, their honesty and candour towards their public and their determination to hang on to Jo Moore, this Administration in general and this Secretary of State in particular have been condemned by the civil service unions, the City, Select Committees and their own Back Benchers; and tonight, they should be condemned by the whole House of Commons, so that at the next election they will be condemned and booted out by the people.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, and I now call the Minister of State, Cabinet Office to move it.

Barbara Roche: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"deplores the attempt by HM Opposition to draw attention away from their lack of coherent policies on public service improvement; welcomes the Government's determination to uphold the highest standards of integrity and honesty in public life; acknowledges that the Government has been open about the standards Ministers, Civil Servants and Special Advisers are expected to uphold; welcomes the publication of the new Ministerial code including the requirements on greater transparency never seen before, attaching the highest importance to the prompt and efficient handling of Parliamentary Questions and correspondence; and commends the professionalism and integrity with which the Government continues to conduct departmental business in the best traditions of public service.".
	That was a fascinating beginning. I had not expected to hear an edition of "What the Papers Say" so early. However, the Government welcome the opportunity to debate the important issue of accountability. It is sad that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) disregarded the title of the motion.
	When I saw the title, I wondered why the subject had been chosen. Again, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) gave the game away. He said in an interview in last week's New Statesman:
	"Last time round we hadn't learned how to engage in opposition. We were too inclined to spot an opportunity for grabbing a headline and too exposed to having to reverse the decision later."
	That sums up Conservative Members' approach this afternoon. They will repeat it time and again. That is why they altered the subject of the debate, which was raised in points of order with you, Mr. Speaker.
	The motion deals with accountability, which is vital in our parliamentary democracy. [Interruption.] The shadow Leader of the House mocks, but I believe that parliamentary democracy is important. [Interruption.] Am I the only one who believes in it? I am surprised at that attitude. I have known the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) for a long time. We were at university together and I remember his record there.
	The line of parliamentary accountability runs from Members of Parliament to the Government. Ministers are accountable to Parliament for their decisions and actions; Parliament ensures that we are accountable to the British people. The ministerial code includes a clear statement by the Prime Minister of his strong personal commitment to the bond of trust between the British people and their Government. [Interruption.] Again, Conservative Members laugh. The ministerial code is vital and I shall show what we mean by accountability.
	The Prime Minister stated in the code that we must be clear about the way in which Ministers should account and be held accountable to Parliament and the public. The code sets out those responsibilities clearly and builds on a resolution on Ministers' responsibilities that the House passed in 1997. I am surprised that Opposition Members have ignored it and believed it to be unimportant.
	The Government's record on statements compares favourably with that of our Conservative predecessors. One hundred and five statements were made in 1997–98, compared with 98 in the post-election Session in 1987–88. On average, the Government made a statement almost every other day in the 1998-99 Session. We will take no lessons from the Opposition on Ministers accountability to Parliament.

John Redwood: Why do so many Secretaries of State refuse to answer the simplest factual questions? For example, I asked the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government, and the Regions for the proportion of freight that went by rail and the proportion that travelled by road in May 1993, May 1997 and May 2001. The answer was that the figures were not available. Can we genuinely believe that?

Barbara Roche: As the Speaker and the Table Office would tell the right hon. Gentleman, he should persist. When I was elected as a Member of Parliament in 1992, I frequently received inadequate replies. The right hon. Gentleman, as an experienced former Minister, knows that if the figures do not appear in the precise form that he requested, they are not available. Perhaps he should reconsider his method of asking the question.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You very wisely advised the House last week that if hon. Members did not receive a satisfactory answer from the Government, they should persist and ask the question in a more simple, straightforward and factual way. I would have thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) had just given an example of the most succinct, factual and simple question possible. Does it puzzle you, as it puzzles me, Mr. Speaker, that we have yet to receive an answer from the Government?

Mr. Speaker: I could not express an opinion on those matters.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Barbara Roche: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley).

Clive Soley: There is a factual answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question. In 1993, the Conservative Government did not collect those figures.

Barbara Roche: I am grateful—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not get so excited.

Barbara Roche: These university reunions always get people going, Mr. Speaker.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The point that he made shows that it is important for Members of Parliament not only to read the answers that they get, but to understand them as well.
	The introduction of Westminster Hall means that Back Benchers and Select Committees set the agenda. This has improved accountability and is part of the modernisation programme. Select Committees' powers to hold the Government to account have been vastly increased. Before, they had three prime-time debates on the estimates, and those remain. Instead of six Wednesday morning debates, the Liaison Committee now sets the business for two Thursdays out of every three in Westminster Hall.
	On parliamentary questions, in a normal Session, some 400,000 questions are answered, and that is certainly evidence of our accountability to Parliament.

John Pugh: Given the Minister's enthusiasm for accountability and for Select Committees, and given the manifest involvement of the Treasury in all aspects of transport policy, does she think that the non-appearance of Treasury Ministers in front of the Select Committee is helping accountability?

Barbara Roche: Treasury Ministers are accountable to Parliament and to the Select Committees on matters for which they are responsible. If we were to take the hon. Gentleman's question to its logical conclusion, Treasury Ministers would have no time to run the affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury because they would be dealing with every other Department's business.
	What is the Tories' attitude to the House and to accountability? Let us look more closely at the views of the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). We all had the opportunity to read his memorandum of 14 September this year to his Conservative colleagues. From it we discovered how deep his respect for Parliament really ran. He urged his party to frustrate the workings of the House with "trench warfare". What respect is he showing for Parliament and the House by writing in those terms? I am really shocked. [Interruption.] I am trying to keep a straight face, but it is very difficult.
	Given the right hon. Gentleman's views on private Members' business, it seems that his elevation to the Front Bench has not appeased what I can only describe as his bizarre lust for blocking sensible pieces of legislation on the ground that they ought to be Government Bills. The right hon. Gentleman presents himself as a doughty defender of the legislature over the Executive, and is keen to defend Back Benchers' rights, just so long as they do not do anything as foolish as to propose any legislation. I remember, for example, the great dismay in the Jewish community when he wrecked a very sensible private Member's Bill that would have meant that Jewish women trapped in religious marriages could have escaped from them. His actions caused great offence.

Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Minister give way?

Barbara Roche: Of course I shall give way to the Conservative Deputy Chief Whip. How wonderful to have an all-speaking, all-dancing Deputy Chief Whip!

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful for the compliment. Will the Minister now assure us that the Government will not block any private Members' Bills in future?

Barbara Roche: We will conduct our legislative programme in the normal way. We will also ensure that we give private Members' legislation every consideration. It is very important that we do so.

Julian Lewis: rose—

Barbara Roche: Another old university friend! How could I resist?

Julian Lewis: Lest the Minister think the relationship too cosy, may I remind her that during the Government's first year in office I came second in the ballot for private Members' Bills, and introduced a Bill to improve conditions for people who suffer catastrophic mental breakdowns and need institutional care? The Government wasted five hours of precious parliamentary time talking the Bill out. Let us keep a sense of reality in regard to the Minister's claims for the Government's attitude.

Barbara Roche: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are not discussing private Members' Bills; we are discussing information. Perhaps we should return to the terms of the motion.

Barbara Roche: Of course the hon. Gentleman's Bill was important, and I am sure that the Government listened to what he had to say, but it is also right for other legislation to be discussed properly.
	We should consider other actions that were taken during the Conservative years. In July 1996, following a discussion at a policy unit seminar chaired by the then Deputy Prime Minister—now Lord Heseltine—permanent civil servants were asked to find
	"panels of people associated with the public services who could be vigorous and attractive proponents of our policies".
	That is best remembered as "recruitment of cheerleaders". I will take no more lectures from the Conservative party on cynical news management.
	Subsequently, the then Cabinet Secretary said that such action was not appropriate for civil servants, and the request was withdrawn.

Tim Collins: The Minister, quite properly, compares her party's record with that of the Government whom I supported. Will she now tell us on how many occasions during the 18 years of Conservative government the parliamentary ombudsman found that the Government had refused point-blank to publish answers to parliamentary questions, despite being asked to do so by the ombudsman? The Minister knows why I ask the question: I do so because that has happened under the present Government in the last couple of months.

Barbara Roche: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a reply off the top of my head, but I am sure that he will obtain one if he consults the Library.

Shona McIsaac: If we are talking about accountability on the part of Governments, including the last Government, we should bear in mind that some of the biggest scandals and cover-ups, some of the greatest secrecy, were perpetrated by the Conservatives. They covered up the BSE scandal, and the export of arms to Iraq. [Interruption.]

Barbara Roche: It is no use the Conservatives trying to drown out my hon. Friend's excellent remarks. She is absolutely right. The Conservatives can try to dish it out, but they certainly cannot take it: that is their great problem.

Ann Winterton: Will the Minister give way?

Barbara Roche: Of course, but then I must make progress.

Ann Winterton: As the Minister believes in open government, will she encourage this Government to hold a full, independent public inquiry into the foot and mouth epidemic?

Barbara Roche: As the hon. Lady will know, two inquiries are in progress and public consultations are taking place.

Peter Kilfoyle: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of how the last Conservative Government disported themselves, does she recall that I tabled more than 800 questions in a very short period to elicit information from them on who sat on quangos, how much they were paid and how they were appointed? Does she recall that on many occasions the then Ministers refused point-blank to answer? It was down to me to find whatever methods I could to elicit that information. Is that not the standard that epitomised the previous Government?

Barbara Roche: It is. I take as my text not only what my hon. Friend has said, but what the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said; from the quotation, I think it was in business questions:
	"May we have a debate next week on the growing practice among Ministers of leaving long delays in answering straightforward and uncomplicated priority written questions?"—[Official Report, 7 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 460.]
	He said that about his own Government. Again, we have that difference between what the Conservatives say and what they did in government.
	The Government attach the highest importance to the duty of Ministers and civil servants to be as open as possible with Parliament and the public. What I really found unacceptable in the speech by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was the attack on our civil service: it was an underlying current throughout. I regard our civil service as the best in the world. On the civil service's behalf, I resent attacks on it.

Tim Collins: Will the Minister give way?

Barbara Roche: I want to make some progress. I have been generous with interventions.
	There is a recognition within Departments that communication has a vital role to play. The Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson, has said:
	"Communication is something we used to tack on at the end of the policy process. In the future it must run alongside it. It is not about spin or . . . control. It is about making sure that the public understands how policies and services will be delivered and how they will affect them."
	The Government are committed to maintaining a non-political permanent civil service. They have given a commitment to legislation for the civil service. The legislation will include a limit on the number of special advisers. It is no wonder that that was never contemplated during the Tory years when we consider how many former Conservative specialist advisers are now on the Conservative Front-Bench team.
	The Government are putting in hand arrangements for wide consultation in advance of the introduction of the legislation. In the meantime, a clear published framework for civil service activity in the form of the civil service code and other key guidance documents set out for Parliament and the public the framework within which the civil service operates.
	Mention is made in the motion of correspondence, although it did not feature greatly in the speech by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. The Government attach the highest importance to the prompt and efficient handling of hon. Members' correspondence.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Barbara Roche: I shall not give way. I want to make some progress.
	All Departments report regularly on their performance on replying to correspondence from hon. Members. The overall volume of correspondence has gone up year on year since 1996. Although the volume has increased, the overall record on replying has improved.
	All Departments set a target for answering correspondence. The most recently published figures show that during 2000 around 8,000 more letters were replied to within the target times set by Departments than in 1999, an improvement in overall performance of 4 per cent.

Andrew Turner: Will my long-standing acquaintance and friend give way?

Barbara Roche: As one can take knowing someone for a long time only so far, the answer is no.
	At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale rightly raised the issue of his past form. As he said, he was the Conservatives' director of communications from 1992 to 1995, after which he became a special adviser. Very fortunately for Labour Members, he is also no stranger to spin. Although he has just quoted The Guardian, he has been described by The Observer as the
	"brains behind Back to Basics",
	and by The Independent as the
	"spin doctor of back to basics".
	For those who do not recall it, back to basics was the rather ill-fated attempt of the previous Tory Government to persuade the British people to vote for them. I should like to place on record my gratitude, and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, for that fine service to our country, if not to the Conservative party.
	The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will also recall that, in 1993, before he became a Member of Parliament, the Home Affairs Committee decided to hold an inquiry—which hon. Members will recall—into the very important subject of party political funding. He described the decision to look into that matter as "an impertinence". I think that, at that stage, he was at Conservative central office. The point is that someone who now poses as the shadow Minister responsible for the Cabinet Office believes that it is impertinent for a Select Committee to examine an issue of such great importance for parliamentary democracy and accountability. It is amazing that he has had the gall to come here today.

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Barbara Roche: No, I shall not.
	In all fairness to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, I should say that we do not disagree on everything. During the 1995 Conservative leadership campaign, he briefed that the leadership campaign team of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) looked like escapees from "Ward 9 at Broadmoor".

Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Barbara Roche: No, I cannot.

Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that the motion and the Government amendment to it are on public information—[Interruption.] The speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) made was interrupted no fewer than three times on points of order. The Minister is referring to matters that were funded privately and had nothing, so far as I know, to do with public information. Is she in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the Minister had not been in order I would have stopped her. The hon. Gentleman's point is a matter more for debate than for the occupant of the Chair.

Barbara Roche: I am of course tempted to give other examples—[Hon. Members: "Go on."] My problem is that, although some of my right hon. and hon. Friends press me to do so, I am kinder than they are—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] It may get me into dreadful trouble, but I cannot give more examples. The record and the previous convictions—or the lack of them—in this sphere of accountability speak for themselves.
	In this debate, we are faced yet again with the sight of Conservative Members trying to persuade people that they have changed. Today, they have moved a motion on accountability, correspondence, record keeping, and all sorts of things, but did any of those things feature significantly in the opening speech of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale? Of course they did not.
	The British people know which party tried to destroy the national health service and which party genuinely believes that it should be publicly funded and free at the point of use. Conservative Members do not want to debate those issues. Everybody knows who gave us boom and bust, two massive recessions, record unemployment and bankruptcies, and that after nearly five years of Labour government, we now have the lowest unemployment, interest rates and inflation for a generation.
	The people know which party gave us the poll tax and tried to destroy local government, and which party has devolved more and more power from the centre.
	The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale had the cheek to talk about the state of our railways. I am always amazed when Conservative Members talk in that way. They know why the railways are in the state that they are in. They know that the Conservative Government took a national rail system with assets built up over half a century and rushed through a botched privatisation before the 1997 election with poorly drafted and ill-conceived legislation. They were a dreadful Government—that much is obvious—but we also know, after five years, that they are a dreadful Opposition.
	Once again, I have some sympathy there. We know, from our own experience in the party of which I have the honour to be a member, that it takes a long time to understand the ways of opposition and become effective at it. I wish the Conservatives very many years in which to become more effective.
	The true test of accountability in any democracy is the judgment of the electorate. The British people have made their judgment on the Conservative party in two successive general elections, as well as the recent Ipswich by-election.
	The Conservatives could have chosen to debate issues of the utmost concern to the British public and the electorate, but instead they chose to table a motion that is ill conceived and without merit. I invite the House to reject it completely.

Paul Tyler: I am delighted that this debate is ranging more widely than some previous debates on the narrow issue of what a particular individual did on a particular day. That will make for much healthier debate. I acknowledge that the Conservatives have both a right and a duty, as we have, to hold the Government to account. If we feel that the mechanisms of government are not helping us in that task, we have a right to draw attention to that.
	Indeed, it is right that, for once, we are discussing the wood rather than simply the tree. Far too often over recent weeks too much attention has been paid to the activities of one special adviser—who I would suggest is a rather insignificant tree—and not enough to the wood, which is the arrogance of office of a Government who seem to think that media manipulation, the politicisation of the civil service and disdain for Parliament are more important than our being able to hold them to account. That individual may have been an objectionable symptom of the wider disease, but we should be conscious that there is a disease and it needs to be treated. Ministers, not civil servants, are accountable to the House, and we must hold them to account.
	I am sorry that the Deputy Prime Minister is not here, because I want to cite what may seem a trivial example of how senior Ministers treat the House with appropriate respect or otherwise. I hope that the Minister will report back to him. In early October I wanted to ask a question on the co-ordination of rural policy. I went to the Table Office and was advised that the Cabinet Office was responsible for that, so I tabled an oral question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
	Lo and behold, within a matter of days, the question was transferred to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which immediately meant that I did not get an opportunity to put a supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister. As we all know, he has a great deal of expertise and experience in matters rural. I was surprised when the answer from DEFRA explained that the co-ordination of rural policy was—guess what—undertaken by the Cabinet Office. So, I brought the matter to the attention of the Speaker, who responded:
	"In the circumstances he"—
	that is, me—
	"describes, where the line of ministerial responsibility is not clear cut, I deprecate the transfer of a question tabled for oral answer, which has the effect of depriving the Member of the opportunity to . . . put a supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister."—-[Official Report, 8 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 379-80.]
	Most of us would take that as a clear statement of the Speaker's view that that should not happen in the future.
	Lo and behold, within a matter of days, I received an extraordinary letter from the Deputy Prime Minister. It made me so angry that it went straight in the bin and, indeed, it has tea stains on it. [Interruption.] Perhaps it should have been teeth marks. The Deputy Prime Minister stated:
	"I have . . . seen the Speaker's ruling"
	and he went on to disagree with that ruling. That is the way in which a most senior member of this Administration treats not just the House collectively but the Speaker, who represents this House.
	A moment ago, the Minister was eloquent on the subject of accountability. The Government are accountable to the House and the Speaker is our representative. He is the guardian of the House in relation to all matters on which we hold the Government to account. If the Deputy Prime Minister, no less, does not even take the trouble to come to the House to argue the case with the Speaker—I do not mind if he does not come to argue the case with me—how can the Minister claim that the Government hold themselves accountable to the House of Commons?
	That is clearly nonsense, but it is the ethos under which the Government have operated in recent months. That is why the examples that have been brought to the attention of the House and of the public are occurring. It is not because one individual has stepped out of line, but because one individual has stood the line precisely where the Government thought that he—or, in this case, she—should stand. If Ministers want to challenge the House, and the Speaker of the House, they should have the guts to come here in person. Perhaps the letter was drafted by a political adviser.
	Reference has already been made this afternoon to the attitude of the Conservative Opposition, and they cannot escape some criticism. [Interruption.] The reference to the infamous trench warfare memorandum from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) did not do it justice. [Interruption.] It is true that he suggested trench warfare—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must not have such a level of conversation in the Chamber when an hon. Member is addressing it.

Paul Tyler: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the memo deserves the widest possible audience. I am sorry that its author is not in his usual place, because he suggests that legislation should move on to the other place "imperfectly scrutinised" by this House. That is saying that the House should not do its job properly.
	The memo also contained a lovely little passage about what the right hon. Gentleman thought his colleagues were capable of. He said:
	"The responsibilities which involve a lot of travel and time away from Westminster should be allocated to colleagues who are likely to be here very little anyway"—
	there are very few of them here this afternoon, even though this is their debate—
	"and ideally not to those who could contribute significantly to Chamber or Committee work."
	If that is the attitude of the Conservative party, is it any wonder that the electorate also think that the House is not performing effectively in scrutinising legislation and the actions of the Executive?
	My hon. Friends, especially the hon. Members for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Lewes (Norman Baker), have spent much time since Parliament came back in October trying to obtain the best possible information from Ministers, precisely within the terms of this debate. What is so extraordinary is that, despite the code of practice on access to Government information, we find it more difficult to extract information now than before the code was introduced in 1997. It is a cumbersome suit of armour to protect Ministers from the light of day and from the scrutiny of questions from Members of Parliament.
	It appears impossible to discover, for example, information about the role, responsibilities and redeployment of Mr. Alun Evans. Questions tabled by several Members—the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) as well as my parliamentary colleagues—have failed to produce evidence of precisely why that gentleman, who held a highly respected and responsible position in the civil service, was moved to a different Department. There was no explanation and no adequate reference to particular papers, minutes of meetings or their content. Who was responsible for deciding whether he should be moved? It is impossible for us to obtain such information through parliamentary questions.
	I have in my hand a copy of the code, although I shall not refer to it in great detail because several hon. Members want to speak. However, what is clever and obvious about it is that there are so many steps along the way before one reaches someone outside the Government—in the case of the parliamentary ombudsman—that most people would never get that far when seeking information. Questions as to how or why information is withheld or made available cannot be left to incestuous, introverted and internal Whitehall inquiries.

John Redwood: The Liberals claim to be not the poodles but the scriptwriters of the Government's policy on railways, favouring as they do a not-for-profit company. As the Government are unable or unwilling to tell us how much public money such a company would need to be able to make a successful bid and then to run the railways, would the Liberals care to tell us or are they equally unwilling to give us any information on that crucial matter?

Paul Tyler: I am flattered by the right hon. Gentleman's obvious respect for our ability to extract information from the Government. What I can tell him is that he voted for the Railways Act 1993 that set out the terms on which the administration of the rail track company was to be undertaken. I can also tell him that the administration is costing him, me and our fellow taxpayers £500,000 a week. The terms for which he voted made it certain that the administrators, Messrs Ernst and Young—he probably thinks that they are more expert in such matters than anybody in the House—have now come up with—

John Redwood: rose—

Paul Tyler: The right hon. Gentleman should let me finish the answer to his first question before he intervenes again.
	The administrators have come up with the extraordinary answer that their only responsibility is to the members and creditors of Railtrack, not to the travelling public—not to us as taxpayers and not to the House. The terms of the legislation for which the right hon. Gentleman voted are causing the incredible and impossible situation that we all face. In the past, the right hon. Gentleman has expressed great interest in saving taxpayers' money, but we as taxpayers will be suffering as a direct result of his Government's incompetence, not only in the way that they privatised the industry but in enacting unworkable legislation.

John Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Paul Tyler: I have already given way and I want to make progress. The right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak later.
	Under the code of conduct for special advisers, they are supposed to record all contacts with the media. That was not true only on 11 September—there were cases before and since that date. However, if those contacts are recorded, we want to know who checks that they are accurate and how we can find out whether they took place. Indeed, we want to know whether records have been kept at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester faced blank obstruction from Ministers when he sought information on those matters, which should be open and above board. Why was the code introduced if the information is not available to Members of Parliament?
	Last week, there was an extraordinary situation when Mr. Jonathan Baume of the First Division Association was questioned on the "Today" programme. He said that there had been selective leaking of last week's information—as hon. Members will recall the minutes of the meeting were issued just as the Chancellor was getting up to make his autumn statement. However, Mr. Baume—a civil servant of great experience who represents his civil service colleagues in the First Division Association—said that the leaking was done at a political level. How can we find out who is responsible for what and who is accountable to the House when there appears to be a civil war between the professional civil servants on the one hand and the special advisers and their ministerial masters on the other? Surely some degree of codification must be established.
	Of course, we have been promised that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 will be fully implemented. The House was assured that, by now, we would be well on the way to full implementation, yet we are told that, as with the trains under Railtrack, it has got stuck up a siding somewhere, and we do not know whether it will come this year, next year, sometime or never. Indeed, the notice board in the station says that it might come in 2005, but—who knows—it might be cancelled altogether.
	The right of access, on which the debate rightly concentrates, is stalled somewhere in the system, but, worse than that, the Minister referred to the civil service Bill, which was promised in the 1997 manifesto. Indeed, it was an integral part of the agreement between my party and the then Labour Opposition that should have been introduced in the 1997 Parliament.

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that. It is first time that I have heard that that Bill was part of the agreement between the Liberal Democrats and the Government. Will he tell us the timetable for any other undertakings? If he believes in open government, perhaps the British people should know what under-the-table deal was done when the Government had the majority that they then had.

Paul Tyler: The hon. Gentleman's memory has clearly collapsed because the agreement—it was known as the Cook-Maclennan agreement—was published in full in March 1997 and was given a great deal of coverage. My hon. Friends are nodding wisely. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman clearly slept through the whole of the last Parliament because many items, including devolution for Scotland and Wales, were undertaken during that time and were very much part of that agreement.
	We are now told that the civil service Bill, to which the Minister referred, is not likely to appear for years. Why? We are told that it is very difficult to get legislation through the House. We believe that such legislation should be introduced as quickly as possible, and I am sure that Conservative Members would welcome it equally sincerely.
	The Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Administration, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) said just a few weeks ago that there is a "creeping politicisation" of Whitehall. The only way to reverse that is by ensuring transparency and honesty and by codifying the proper roles and responsibilities of the professional civil service, and that involves legislation. There is nothing new about politicisation or media manipulation, but perhaps they have been used slightly more successfully in the past.
	Mr. Bernard Ingham, as he then was, indulged in some very splendid spinning. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be interested to hear that, when I referred to that on the "Today" programme, that gentleman, now Sir Bernard Ingham, indulged in some correspondence with me, denying that he had actually undertaken any negative spinning involving members of the Government. Indeed, he said that he was coming to their aid and defending them. He said:
	"I did not, as you assert, attack them. I was trying to defend them from Lobby demands for their sacking after some rather extraordinary behaviour on their part. I sought to do so by referring to their natures. I was successful in my efforts, even though those efforts have been consistently misrepresented."
	In fact, as has been said in British Journalism Review, Mr. John Biffen, whom, as hon. Members will recall, the then Prime Minister's spokesman called a "semi-detached member of the Government", was hung out to dry,
	"to twist in the wind for another year, before eventually being cut down and deposited on the Back Benches two days after the 1987 General Election".
	All I can say is that, if it was not spinning that damaged those gentlemen, I cannot imagine what that spin doctor would have done if he had really wanted to attack the two people involved.
	There has been a change, and let us give credit to the Government. The same secrecy does not now surround the spin doctors. We tend to know, in a matter of hours, who is spinning against whom. In those days, the master spinner himself was cloaked in anonymity—well, for a few hours any way. At least now, such information comes out remarkably quickly because it seems that, as soon as a spin doctor indulges in anything of that sort, someone in another part of Whitehall, or in the Labour party, quickly jumps up to say, "It wasn't me, guv," and tells us where the origin lies. That is a step forward in the circumstances.
	I congratulate the Government on the fact that the transparent spinning against one another in the Labour party and the Government at least offers us an occasional vignette of the civil war that is going on.
	I also congratulate the Conservative party. What other great political party would have decided to pick on the rail industry over recent weeks to indulge in endless debates in the House? It is very public spirited—every time the words "rail" and "Conservative" appear in the public prints, the public remember that it was the Conservatives who did it.
	As transport spokesman for my party, I spent hours, as did my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), pointing out the mess we would get into if the then Government insisted on privatising the railways. We told the Labour party, then in opposition, that if we two parties stood shoulder to shoulder and told the public and the institutions that if British Rail was privatised by the Conservative party, we would try and make sure in the next Parliament that it was brought back under public control, that there would be a bond payment and no profit to anyone who bought shares, the railway industry would not be privatised. It could not have been. No institution would have dared to do that when a Conservative defeat was in prospect.
	I am delighted that the Conservative party refers constantly to the incompetent way in which it ruined one of our great national industries. It was confirmed again on "Today". I am not sorry to keep giving a plug to Sue MacGregor, for she is a good friend of mine, and I think that before she goes she should be congratulated on the work that she has done. On "Today" this morning, a spokesman for Stagecoach—one of the companies that has rolled with the cash of privatisation—said that everybody agrees that the way in which privatisation has gone through was a mistake. I hope that the Conservatives will tell us later that they, too, feel that it was a dreadful mistake.
	In the mean time, we who are responsible to the public for what is going on, must take notice of the fact that today we are told that Railtrack investors will have to go to law to get the documentation that they require to establish what the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has been doing. We cannot do that. We Members of Parliament—the High Court of Parliament, as it were—are having such difficulty in getting information out of Ministers who say that they are accountable to us that it seems as if the lawyers will be the only people to obtain it.

Anne McIntosh: I am a little confused. The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that the railways—the way in which the Government have handled the industry and the lack of communication about it—is a legitimate argument for debate, but earlier he said that it was not. Which is it?

Paul Tyler: I have never said that it was not a legitimate argument for debate. I have simply said that the accountability of the Government to this House, not just of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, is what we are discussing. I have not suggested that the activities—in this field or any other—of the Secretary of State, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions or the right hon. Gentleman's special adviser are improper. What is improper is if the House starts passing motions demanding the sacking of a civil servant or special adviser. We demand the sacking of Ministers. We have done that in the past—they are responsible to us.
	I have the quotation that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) was shouting about earlier in his statement, and it does not say what he says it does.

Tim Collins: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the leader of the Liberal Democrats did not call for the dismissal of Ms Jo Moore in his appearance on "Today" a few days ago?

Paul Tyler: No, he did not, and I have the quotation here. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) said that that individual
	"should look in the mirror and consider her position".
	She should resign.
	It is wrong for the House to regard a civil servant or special adviser as in some way employed by us. Indeed, the employment tribunal would be a wonderful spectacle if we were to succeed in sacking somebody. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has not been here very long, so perhaps he does not know that it is Ministers who are responsible to the House. That is why my right hon. Friend also said that he felt that the Secretary of State's position had been corroded by what had happened in recent weeks. I am glad to put that on the record, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will correct his statement.
	There have also been episodes in recent weeks of briefing against other public servants within the Department. However, we should be concerned not just with that Department and those individuals. Indeed, I submit that we should be grateful to Ms Jo Moore because she has exposed a degree of cynical manipulation of the media and political pressure on career civil servants. In the process there has been a deliberate attempt to avoid parliamentary accountability. That is the arrogance of office, and that is what concerns us.
	In any other great national institution in this country, that individual would have resigned in such circumstances. The climate and atmosphere of irresponsibility mean that the Government have to consider changing course and making themselves truly accountable to Parliament, and through Parliament to the people.
	5 pm

Louise Ellman: Shortly after the last general election the public were told that the Conservative party, which had suffered yet another traumatic loss, was going to have a long, deep look at itself and consider changing its policies to make itself more electable. I can only imagine that one of those changes of policy must be a recanting of its record on producing information to the House and the public. One of the indictments of the last Conservative Government was the way in which they acted in secrecy. They attempted to hide information from the House and tried to stop and limit their accountability to the public for what they did.
	It seems that in initiating a debate on public information and accountability, the Conservatives have forgotten the arms to Iraq scandal and the Scott report, when wilful action was taken to deceive the public on matters of grave national security and grave public concern. They have forgotten that as the Government who set up the quango state, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) referred, they deliberately put into the hands of unelected and unaccountable people more responsibility and funding than remain in local government. In setting up numerous agencies and instructing them to deal with things on their own, and by preventing Ministers from being responsible to Parliament for the work of those agencies, the Conservatives again blocked public access to important information on matters that affected them.
	Since then, a number of things have changed. I am pleased that this Government have widened access to information for the House and the public by changing the rules on agencies. The Conservative Government's rule, under which Ministers were not accountable to Parliament for the work of agencies, has been rescinded. I remember the great concern when the Conservatives cut welfare benefits. Local authorities made representations to the Government and were told that the Minister of the day did not have to answer those queries in the House because the Benefits Agency was in charge and it did not have to report to Parliament. The Government have changed that and similar practices.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Lady will remember sitting with me in the Transport Committee when time after time we asked the Secretary of State straightforward questions and time after time he declined to answer them. Surely nothing in history, and no changes by the Government to the way in which information is disseminated by agencies, can justify a Secretary of State sitting in front of Members of Parliament and refusing to answer straightforward questions, or at best giving evasive answers to them.

Louise Ellman: The hon. Gentleman gives his interpretation of events in the important Transport Committee meeting. I will refer to some of those matters in relation to public information later in my comments.
	One major problem that we face is the privatisation of the rail industry by the Conservatives, which other hon. Members have mentioned. When the Conservatives set upon privatisation as a matter of policy, they deliberately erected a barrier between public representatives and the provision of and accountability for public services.

Mark Francois: The hon. Lady replied to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) about what a Minister did or did not say in a Select Committee. On the subject of accountability to the House, will she at least give credit where it is due and accept that the Conservative party set up Select Committees in 1979 so that Ministers could be held to account on specialist parts of their brief?

Louise Ellman: It was of course the House of Commons that set up those Committees, but I give great credit to the Conservative Members of the day who supported, and indeed suggested, the initiative.

Clive Soley: It was indeed a Conservative Member, Norman St. John-Stevas, who took the initiative, but he disappeared from Government fairly quickly afterwards, largely because many Conservative Members did not like the way in which Select Committees worked. The Conservatives also set up evidence-taking Committees, which was also St. John-Stevas's idea, but promptly stopped using them because they found them a great embarrassment. Now we use them regularly for Bills, and I hope that we will continue to do so.

Louise Ellman: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. As I said, I believe that Select Committees are an extremely important part of our democracy, and I would like to see them strengthened and their remit widened. That is important for accountability and openness.

John Redwood: The hon. Lady criticised the Conservative party for privatising the railways. Is she aware that the Government's policy is to re-privatise them by selling them back to a private sector company? Is it also her understanding that the Government want to privatise the tube, splitting track from trains, and air traffic services? Why is she so strongly against privatisation?

Louise Ellman: As I understand the situation, a decision about the successor to Railtrack has not been made. The matter is still being considered by the administrators and a final decision will be made by the Secretary of State. One proposal is for a company limited by guarantee, which despite being private would not issue shares or dividends to outside members, thereby preventing conflict between shareholders and the public. Such a structure could well operate in the public interest, and I have experience of such companies doing so very effectively. We do know that the privatised rail system set up by the Conservatives was inadequate; it failed to deliver, and it has cost the taxpayer a great deal of money with no great result.
	Under Conservative-inspired privatisation, regulation is one of the few forms of accountability and means of providing information to the House and the public. When we considered what had happened to the utilities, particularly water, while the Conservatives were in power, we saw that the situation was unacceptable. There was increasing public uproar as the fat cats of the privatised water industry gained more and more finance while the public received an inadequate service. I am pleased to say that this Government have improved the situation, and regulation in the water industry appears to be effective, although we need constantly to monitor its progress.
	I cannot say, however, that regulation of privatised rail services has been equally effective. I was extremely concerned to receive only today a letter from the Rail Regulator, Mr. Tom Winsor, informing me—as he had informed the press over the weekend—that he was unable to investigate Virgin for increasing rail fares on the west coast main line. My complaints to Mr. Winsor go back 18 months and refer to an increase of 100 per cent. in rail fares from Liverpool to London as a result of Virgin arbitrarily deciding to redefine peak time. Now, people who travel from Liverpool to London have to pay at least £153; they cannot arrive before the afternoon without paying that fare, which is entirely unacceptable.
	It is equally unacceptable that it has taken Mr. Winsor 18 months to decide that he is unable to conduct an investigation into Virgin's abuse of its monopoly on the west coast main line. That is indicative either of a weak regulator or of insufficiently strong regulation that needs to be revised in the interests of the travelling public. I intend to pursue that matter both directly with Ministers in the Chamber and in the Select Committee. It is clear that rail privatisation has been unsatisfactory and has not served the public.

Chris Grayling: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way to me a second time, and I look forward to interesting discussions with her and other members of the Transport Committee on our recommendations on regulation. Does she agree that the structure and nature of regulation of the rail industry was reshaped by the Labour Government; and that despite the praise she pours on to the regulation of other industries and the Government's approach to them, when the crunch came in the rail industry, the Secretary of State felt the need to threaten to bypass the regulator to get things done?

Louise Ellman: In terms of general regulation, I agree that rail industry regulation is not satisfactory. I intend to press for improvements, because the interests of the travelling public are not well served by the current structure. When looking to the future of Railtrack, Ministers should consider the functions and responsibilities of the Rail Regulator and the Strategic Rail Authority. The system has failed, as well as the management of Railtrack as an individual company.
	I shall now speak about some of the issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) and to the reference in the motion to the conduct of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. I refer in particular to the contentious note and minutes of the 25 July meeting between the Secretary of State and his officials and John Robinson, chairman of Railtrack.
	It is important to remember that the note and the minutes were made accessible to public view solely because the Transport Committee requested that they be made available. When answering the Committee's queries, the Secretary of State said that it was most unusual, if not unprecedented, for notes and minutes of that sort to be made available, but added that to assist the Committee, and if that was what the Committee wanted, he would make them public. That is another illustration of the Committee's importance and underlines the significance of having Select Committees that are open and determined and that want to act in the public interest.
	The note and minutes of that important meeting fall into two parts. It is clear that the uncontested part of the note reinforces the indictment made against Railtrack's management by many sources. According to the note, Mr. Robinson said that
	"He was trying to build a better relationship with the Rail Regulator"—
	presumably something was wrong. He said that
	"He was taking personal control of the West Coast Main Line upgrade"—
	presumably because Railtrack had failed. In evidence to the Transport Committee, it was made clear that because Railtrack had failed to modernise the west coast main line, Railtrack and Virgin were already discussing compensation of at least £300 million. Moreover, we now learn that Virgin intended to increase its fares by a further 33 per cent. as part of the compensation deal because Railtrack failed to deliver. The undisputed part of the note recorded that the chairman of Railtrack said:
	"In all of this his aim was to follow on the key things Railtrack needed to do to run a safe, reliable railway".
	Presumably, Railtrack was not doing so before. The note also stated that the chairman said:
	"Turning things round was not a question of more investment, but rather running the company properly."
	That echoes Mr. Winsor's evidence to the Select Committee, in which he spoke about Railtrack's incompetence and its disregard for its customers.
	In the now published and undisputed part of the minutes, the indictment of Railtrack's management grows increasingly clear and severe, but what about the important part of the note, now a public document, which is disputed? It concerns what the Secretary of State says John Robinson, the chairman of Railtrack, said and what Mr. Robinson says he did not say. The only responsible conclusion to be drawn from the minutes is that it has not been proved that the Secretary of State is right. He says that the chairman of Railtrack stated that he needed a letter of comfort for his bank before he could obtain bank resources and needed extra funding from the Government; otherwise he would not be able to say that Railtrack was a going concern at the meeting at which he was to give an interim statement on 8 November. Those details were not recorded at the request of the chairman of Railtrack, but, according to the Secretary of State, that is what he said. The fact that the chairman of Railtrack said that he did not say those things cannot be proved or disproved.
	The notes do not prove that the Secretary of State was right, nor do they prove that he was wrong. We must look at people's motives either for agreeing or trying to dispute what they said. Ministers and Secretaries of State are accountable to the House of Commons, so we can ask those questions of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and it is right that we should do so, but Mr. Robinson is the chairman of a private company, so we cannot ask him directly what he said. He is responsible to his private board and shareholders, who are supposed to call him to account, but have Railtrack's minutes been disclosed? Do we know what its chairman reported to his board or shareholders following his meeting with the Secretary of State or, perhaps even more critically, following further discussions with the Secretary of State and his officials? We do not know that, so we cannot challenge or question it.

John Pugh: rose—

Theresa May: rose—

Louise Ellman: I shall give way in a moment.
	We are dealing with two separate things: a Secretary of State is responsible to the public and the House, but a chairman of a privatised company, responsible for a public service, answers not to elected Members of Parliament but to a private board that does not have to disclose its minutes and is not subject to public questioning in a place such as the House of Commons.

Theresa May: I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that the chairman of Railtrack has made his notes of the 25 July meeting available to the Financial Services Authority in connection with its investigation into the matter, whereas the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has so far not passed on the papers requested by the FSA. Does she agree that, if the Government are as interested in public information as she claims, those papers should be sent to the FSA forthwith?

Louise Ellman: My point concerns disclosure and responsibility on the part of the chairman of a private company that is running a public service. I am not aware of the chairman of Railtrack making publicly available the minutes of his board meeting on 25 July or, even more significantly, about what happened following 25 July.
	It is not clear whether the chairman of Railtrack met his fiduciary duties in relation to his shareholders and his board, in terms of his understanding of the possible critical financial situation of Railtrack as a going concern? We do not have that information. I am not certain that the public are entitled to have such information. We are dealing with a private company, and we see the conflict when a private company is running a major public service, yet is not responsible to the public.
	I give way to the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh).

John Pugh: The point that I intended to make was made by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May).

Louise Ellman: Railtrack has featured large in the debate, because it represents the failure of privatisation and the problems of public accountability for a public service when it is run by a privatised company. The Government have done much to restore confidence in the public services.
	All of us should take note of two things, the first of which is the importance of public services being run by publicly accountable bodies. Until we have that, it will not be possible for the House or the public at large to know that services are being run properly or to have the answers that they require and, indeed, deserve. Secondly, the House must register the importance of Select Committees. The work of the Transport Committee in particular is proving increasingly important in the matter of Railtrack. If it were not for the questions asked by the Committee, the notes would not have been requested and would not have been made available.
	It is incumbent on all elected Members to recognise the importance of Select Committees in accessing and making available public information in the public interest. I hope that no Government, including the present Government, will be tempted to curtail the activities of Select Committees. Their powers should be extended, as it is the Select Committees above all that represent the people of this country and allow democratic accountability to be far more stringently applied than is possible on the Floor of the House.

John Redwood: I have declared my interest in the register.
	The Government treat public information as though it were private property, and are grasping in the way that they hold it to them and will not release it. They are rather like Scrooge with public information, before he underwent his remarkable conversion and discovered that Christmas could be fun and one should be generous. My worry is that the Government, having launched their new code, and having penned an amazing amendment to the motion about how much they believe in openness, are not about to convert as Scrooge did, just before Christmas. However, I shall be delighted to give way to the Minister if he wishes to answer the many questions that I tabled concerning the conduct of his Department, and in particular the conduct of its railway policy.
	Trying to get to the bottom of what has happened, what is going on and the Government's estimate of what will happen next, I have discovered a series of roadblocks and railblocks placed in my way, which I shall share with the House as we are debating how impossible it is to get information out of this miserable Government, while they pretend to be very much in favour of openness and full disclosure. In their amendment to the motion, they have the brazen cheek to refer to
	"the publication of the new Ministerial code including the requirements on greater transparency never seen before".
	That takes the breath away. When will we see and benefit from the greater transparency in which they proudly say they believe?
	Let us start with an easy question for the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. I asked the Secretary of State recently
	"what proportion of freight went by (a) road and (b) rail in May (i) 1993"—
	there has been quite enough time to collect those figures—
	"(ii) 1997"—
	a good long time to collect those—
	"and (iii) 2001"—
	a little closer to the present, but several months ago. The question was a very simple and factual one. Why did I ask it? I have a hunch that the proportion of freight travelling by rail rose after privatisation. Indeed, in support of that view, I have the testimony, in general terms, of the Deputy Prime Minister, who expressed that view when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, as well as the testimonies of Ministers in the Department. Thus, we know from statements made by the Deputy Prime Minister and one of the junior Transport Ministers that they have studied the issue and must have the figures. Yet, I was told in reply:
	"The figures are not available in the form requested."—[Official Report, 4 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 156W.]—
	greater openness, "never seen before". I rest my case on that point. The Minister does not jump up to help the House or to explain whether the Deputy Prime Minister knew what he was talking about when he said that the proportion of rail freight had risen sharply under privatisation.
	I then started to ask a few more difficult questions about what the Government were doing and why they were digging a huge hole for the railways by forcing them into administration. I asked the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when bids would close for the assets and liabilities of Railtrack plc in administration. I have read in the newspapers that the Government have an estimate—presumably, this information comes from good sources that are close to them—of when Railtrack will come out of administration.
	In order to come out of administration, however, the administrator must first invite bids. Of course, the Government must know when the bidding process will take place. They will have to supply an enormous amount of information for the sale memorandum. We have read in the papers and have heard in a statement made in the House that they are interested in proposing a particular model company that they want to bid. Presumably, therefore, they take an interest in when bidding might open and close. However, this was the answer that I received:
	"This is a matter for the administrator."—[Official Report, 22 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 389W.]
	Again, we are reminded of greater openness never seen before.
	I then asked the Secretary of State for his estimate of
	"the gross assets to be transferred to the new Railtrack company and . . . the debt to be set against those assets."
	Again, the Department presumably investigated the issue with great thoroughness and with the aid of all the accountancy and legal advice that it received at our expense before deciding to petition the court for an administration order. The Minister for Transport, who is now sitting on the Front Bench, gave this answer:
	"I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 31 October 2001, Official Report, column 671W."—[Official Report, 6 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 134W.]
	I referred to that previous answer, which contained some interesting things but nothing about the Government's estimate of the gross assets to be transferred or the debt to be set against them.
	If the Government are serious about getting on with the task of getting Railtrack out of administration and back to work properly, they need to tell potential bidders when the bidding will take place and what they are bidding for. Why cannot the Government come clean with the travelling public and the taxpayer and tell us what is on offer, when the bids will open and when they will close? I and my constituents are impatient to see the railway back on the road to recovery. We know that that means getting it out of administration as quickly as possible and getting it back into private hands, which is the Government's policy.
	How disappointed Labour Back Benchers will be when they realise the full horror of what the Government have done in collapsing the railway into administration and learn that they are spending a fortune and will be force feeding a large number of advisers large fees for the hard work that they will definitely have to do with the muddle that has been created, after which they will re-privatise the railway. The Minister shakes his head, but he will not spring up and say that that is not his policy, as he knows full well that he has no authority from the Prime Minister or the Chancellor—of course, they have different views on most subjects these days, but they agree on this one—to say that the Government will renationalise the railways.
	The Government have no wish to stand behind the safety and track problems and the huge cash drain that the railway would be if it were returned to nationalised control. They should be more honest and open with their Back Benchers, who will be bitterly disappointed when they discover that what is happening is a recipe not for nationalisation but for a very expensive re-privatisation, with the Government holding out the hope of an extraordinary type of company that will need massive sums if it is to have any chance of getting off the ground.
	I went on to ask the Secretary of State
	"what advice the Government had sought about the timing of an announcement to the stock exchange of the changed plans for Railtrack plc."
	The answer stated:
	"In reaching his decision on 5 October . . . the Secretary of State had regard to the responsibilities and duties that Railtrack Group plc has as a stock exchange quoted company."—[Official Report, 23 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 494W.]
	I asked what advice the Government had sought, not whether the Secretary of State had considered it properly. I did not ask about his decision. I expected the answer to identify the advisers and, even better, the cost of the process. Instead, I received an answer to a completely different question. Another example of greater openness never seen before.
	I asked the Secretary of State what action he had taken on the plan to cuts costs at Railtrack plc that the board drew up before the company was put into administration. I had heard a rumour, perhaps in the press, that the Government had been keen to abort the decision of Railtrack's board before it went into receivership to cut costs by reducing staff. I could understand the Labour party wanting to make such a decision. However, the answer stated:
	"The running of the company during administration is a matter for the Administrator."—[Official Report, 22 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 389W.]
	Again, that is not a specific answer to the question.
	I should still like to know what happened to the outgoing board's plans to reduce costs. Why did the Government decide that there was no need to reduce cost? The rail industry is experiencing a horrendous loss of cash in the hands of the administrator, and is propped up by a reluctant Government, if we are to believe what we read about the Treasury's attitudes.
	I asked the Secretary of State
	"what his estimate is of the fees of the administrator for Railtrack plc".
	One would think that one of the first questions that the Secretary of State and the Treasury would ask during the many months of deliberation about whether to place Railtrack in administration would be about the costs, specifically those of accountants, lawyers and administrators, of undergoing the gruelling and difficult process. If we believe, as we must, the Government's answer, we have to believe:
	"It is not possible at this stage to make an accurate estimate."
	We are therefore invited to believe that the Government have bought a pig in a poke. They have bought something undesirable and they have no idea of its cost.
	Before a policy was agreed in government in my day, we held bilateral meetings with the Treasury, which always argued about our estimates of the cost. A compromise was struck or, in some cases, the policy was vetoed if the Treasury decided that it was too dear. Yet it seems that it is not possible to tell us how much money the taxpayer will spend on administration—greater openness never seen before.
	I asked the Secretary of State
	"what the . . . daily rate of (a) loss"—
	profit before tax—
	"and (b) cash outflow at Railtrack plc in administration has been since 5 October."
	Again, one would think that the Treasury and the Department would monitor that question day by day as it is such a large item in the public budget.
	In the pre-Budget statement, the Chancellor claimed enormous credit from Labour Back Benchers for announcing £1,000 million extra for the national health service. That is not a large sum, given the size of its budget. He did not mention the more than £2,000 million extra that, according to the Government's figures, will be needed for Railtrack in administration until March 2001, let alone the sum that may be needed in 2001–02. Money will be required to continue paying for losses, start paying for investment, which cannot be delayed for ever, and to get the company out of administration. It will also be needed to pay all the fees, and, if the Government have their way, the huge sum needed to capitalise the not-for-profit company that they believe the private sector will finance in the future. That is breathtaking.
	Again, I received an extraordinary answer to my question. It stated:
	"This is a matter for the Administrator. The premature release of unaudited financial information may prejudice the Administrator's . . . release of commercially sensitive information".
	I could understand that answer if Railtrack was a public limited company that had to report to its shareholders in the normal way. I should not have dreamed of asking the question in that case because such companies are answerable to the markets, their shareholders and their customers and they have to report according to a defined cycle.
	However, the House of Commons made its reputation and built its strength on making the Executive answerable for the amount of money that they spend and how such spending is financed. How, then, can a company as huge as Railtrack be in administration, losing hundreds of millions of pounds as the months go by—on the Government's forecast, possibly losing or absorbing £3.5 billion in the year to March 2001—when we believe that the Government budgeted only £900 million for Railtrack if it had stayed a fully fledged, private sector, public limited company? That represents a massive change in the Government's figures. Greater openness, never seen before.
	I then asked the Secretary of State what money was available for the successor company to Railtrack in 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 from Government sources and from Strategic Rail Authority sources. I knew that I had to specify both sources, otherwise the Government would play tricks with the answer. The Minister replied:
	"I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by . . . the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on 23 October 2001, Official Report, column 195W."—[Official Report, 21 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 277-78W.]
	I re-read the reply given to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick)—indeed, I had the pleasure of making a speech on the subject of that reply on the day it was hurried out to the media to try to deal with some media management problem that the Government were having. It is a very full answer, untypically for the Government, but, once again, it has nothing to do with the question that I tabled. There are no figures in the reply to the hon. Member for Preston on how much money is available for the successor company in the years specified.
	My question to the Secretary of State was not a scholarship question. It was more a GCSE question, by public expenditure standards. I was simply asking how much money was available for a very big chunk of our rail industry in the next three years. We know that the Government budget in three-year dollops, and we know that the Chancellor has just produced a pre-Budget statement, so presumably he has put all these figures to bed. Why, therefore, is this a state secret? Why cannot we prise these figures from the Government? Why cannot we know how much money is going to be spent?
	Labour Members might welcome such information and say that it is great that so much money is to be poured into the railways. Or they might be critical and say that it is not quite enough for the west coast main line, or whatever is their preferred tipple in railway investment terms. My Conservative colleagues might share my view that the figure might be rather too big, and that there might be better ways of running the company and spending the money. To receive absolutely no reply on the matter is a disgrace.
	This is also a matter of great public interest. I am not making a party political point here; I am interested in this because if we are going to get the company out of administration quickly, any bona fide bidder is going to want this information. It must have been agreed with the Treasury in the run-up to the pre-Budget statement. Should not it be published now so that people can consider, on the basis of the money available for the next three years, whether they think that they have a chance of putting in a sensible bid for the railway, or whether they think that the money is too little and that there is no point in bidding?
	Would not it also help Labour Members—who still favour that extraordinary animal, the company limited by guarantee that neither makes profits nor pays dividends—if they knew how much this company was going to get in the form of public subsidy, when they were deciding whether to go on the board, and going to the City to raise the billions that the company will need? That information could be crucial to getting the company going.

Louise Ellman: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a company limited by guarantee does indeed make profits, but instead of distributing those profits to outside shareholders it reinvests them in the business of the company? Does he accept that that is the strength of a company limited by guarantee?

John Redwood: That might be true or it might not be true. In the original version, I think that the Minister was calling it a not-for-profit company, and I assumed that it would follow the long tradition of such Labour adventures, and that the Government would run it rather like they ran the dome—very successfully not for profit, if I remember rightly. They ran the dome at a thumping loss, and there is a grave danger that they would do the same with a company limited by guarantee in the railway industry.
	The Minister subsequently amplified his answer, and said that the intention would be to run the company for profit and to plough the profits back to build a stronger balance sheet out of retained profit. That is still a return to the equity holder. It is just the same as any other private sector company trying to build capital value and asset value. A company in the private sector can always decide whether to distribute some or none of its profits, and makes half-yearly or annual decisions on that issue. Some companies in the private sector choose not to distribute anything, because they take the view that they can reinvest at such a good rate of return that it would be in the interest of their shareholders to do so.
	Any company limited by guarantee would be wise to try to budget for a profit and to build up reserves. What the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) does not seem to understand—the Government clearly do not—is that there is a cost to capital involved. That cannot be avoided. The Government are trying to design a body that gets practically all its money by borrowing rather than by raising equity from private shareholders. The short-term effect of that will be dearer capital, not cheaper capital.
	The current price of raising bond money for a vehicle like this would be 6, 7 or 8 per cent. The price of raising equity money would probably be 4 per cent. In the early years, adopting the Government's preferred route rather than the more normal route—involving a balance of "for profit" and "for dividend" shareholders, as well as some bondholders—would probably double the cashflow cost.
	The hon. Lady must also understand this. If the Government want a grade A credit rating—as they said they did in response to a rare question that received an answer—they must realise that the cost will be enormous. They must now tell us how much money they will put on the balance sheet of the not-for-profit, or not-for-dividend, company to give it a chance of gaining a grade A credit rating.
	Such ratings do not grow on trees. People do not suddenly say, "Here is Railtrack, in administration, with junk-bond status. Now it is to be transferred lock, stock and barrel to a company limited by guarantee. Whoopee! It has a triple-A rating! Aren't we lucky!" The bunch of assets and liabilities remains the same, and unless the Government inject an extremely large sum into its "not-for-dividend, not-for-profit, like the Dome" company, no one will touch it with a bargepole. It will still be given a junk-bond rating, and raising the capital will be very dear.

Stephen O'Brien: As you see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I found my right hon. Friend's analysis so compelling I had to move to my present place in order to intervene.
	The most important consideration is, surely, the time cost. For such a rating to be given by the agencies, at least a three-year—perhaps a five-year—track record will be required. As well as the cost of the money itself, there will be a time element. The Government will have to underpin that by ensuring that there is no potential loss during the period involved.

John Redwood: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has been keeping well within the rules; I know he will appreciate that this is not a debate about Railtrack.

John Redwood: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it so happens that I want to proceed to the subject of information relating to timing, which is relevant to my hon. Friend's query and, indeed, probably what he had in mind.
	I asked the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for his estimate of the time that Railtrack would remain in administration. The longer it stays in administration, of course, the worse its track record will be—so far we have seen mounting losses, worse delays and cancelled or delayed investment—which will make it even more difficult for money to be raised on any sensible basis for any company that the Government may wish to create after Railtrack ceases to be in administration.
	One would have thought that the Government would have an estimate of the time that Railtrack would remain in administration. I have read estimates in the newspapers, and I have not seen Ministers rushing to deny them. Those estimates looked as if they had come from Government sources, but apparently not: when I asked my question in the House of Commons, which should always be first to hear interesting news, I was told that it was a matter for the administrator. So, no go there. What remarkable openness—never seen before.

Anne McIntosh: My right hon. Friend speaks of estimates. Will he take this opportunity to ask whether it is true that this is one Department that does not expect to reach the total of its estimated expenditure?

John Redwood: I did not know that, and it is very interesting. My hon. Friend's intervention demonstrates the expertise she has gained from her excellent work on the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions, to which I pay tribute.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: While we are on the subject of railway administration, may I mention that I tabled a written question to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions about routine track and signal maintenance? The answer I received was that that was the responsibility not of the Government, but of the administrator. Does my right hon. Friend find it worrying that the Government are not concerned about safety in this context?

John Redwood: I do indeed—and that is another point I was coming to. Having been thwarted after tabling so many written questions to the Secretary of State, I wrote a letter asking him to set out the position on safety. I think the Government have a clear moral and political obligation to accept ultimate responsibility, now that they have taken the law into their own hands and persuaded the court to put the railways into administration.
	Labour, in opposition and subsequently in government, was always ready to rush to attack the privatised industry whenever a dreadful tragedy occurred. We all hate dreadful tragedies, and we all want the railways to be as safe as possible. I have never believed that company directors deliberately create unsafe companies—they know that that would be morally wrong and inhuman, as well as being bad for business—but the Labour party has sometimes appeared to allege that privatised companies somehow cannot be safe.
	Now the Government have their way temporarily. The body is in administration; effectively it is operating under a lot of guidance, control and influence from the Secretary of State. Surely there is a moral and political obligation, if not a legal one—given the way in which the body is currently drawn up—for the Government to reassure us all that railway safety will be paramount, crucial and that no corners will be cut during administration.

Hugo Swire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, by that very act, the Government have so undermined the morale of those working in the industry that it could have ramifications in the run-up to Christmas, which is a particularly busy time for the railways?

John Redwood: That is absolutely right. For that reason, we need more information about safety and morale. The terrible figures that are coming out of the railways show how much damage has been done to morale. That is not surprising when the shareholding of small shareholders and employees has been wiped out, and when many of the senior management have left because they have found it insufferable to work under those conditions. I believe that more senior management will leave, for understandable reasons.
	Finally—there were many more examples, but I have taken just a selection for the purposes of this debate—I asked the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate was of the cash needs of Railtrack in administration. I was told that any estimate of the cash needs would be "purely speculative". There we have it—the Government do not have a clue; or can it be that they are trying to withhold information from the House because it is deeply embarrassing? Surely not, so it must be that they do not have a clue; yet we have read in the newspapers that the industry has already gobbled up £800 million in administration—guaranteed by the Government, drawn down, presumably completely spent and used up—and that the cash requirement up to the end of March could be £3.5 billion.
	Can the Government in this debate give an estimate of how big a financial black hole they have dug for themselves just up to March next year? It is not asking much. Surely they have to tell the administrator how much money will be available; surely he has to tell them what he thinks he may need. Huge sums of public money are involved, far bigger than the Government's increase in health expenditure. Should not the House of Commons be told?
	I have asked today and in questions for a timetable setting out when the bidding will take place and when we can expect the railway to return to a life that may get it back to normal. I have asked the Government to set out their policy towards the railways. Again, answers came there none. I have asked them to set out how much money is available; there have been no answers. I have asked them to say who is allowed to bid; they have not told us. I have asked them to give a proper report on the progress of the company limited by guarantee; there has been one written answer with a few sketchy ideas, and since then a stony silence.
	If the Government are serious about getting Railtrack out of administration within the next six months, surely the company limited by guarantee should be up and running. Can we hear more about that today? Can we have some information about how the Secretary of State can both be presiding over the whole process and working with one of the bidding companies? Is he going to get that company off the ground? How much money has he got from the taxpayer, promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to try to make it work? Can he give us a few more figures on the balance sheet of that incredible company, which the Government think will answer their prayers but which will be very difficult to get up and running?
	Some Labour Members seem to think that the railway industry that is now in administration is on a magical mystery tour that will end up in a cost-free nationalisation. The truth is that it is on a misery tour where the reality is declining services, cancelled trains, delayed trains, cancelled investment, delayed investment, hopes shattered, share price bombed out, employees robbed and shareholders about to sue the Government. What do we get from the Government? We do not even get any straight answers to simple factual questions. It is time they owned up and told us the truth.

Clive Soley: If the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) had seriously wanted answers to those questions, rather than putting out another spin of his own, he would have put in for a debate on the railways. [Hon. Members: "We have already done that."] Opposition Members have not done that. The motion covers a bit of Railtrack, Government management of news—spinning—the civil service, political advisers, parliamentary and Government standards, reform and modernisation of Parliament and how to use Parliament. It does not offer a serious debate about the future of the railways.
	It is not for me to advise Conservative Members on their general election strategy; as a Labour Member, I think that they were remarkably successful in managing their strategy in the previous two general elections and I wish them great success in the future. However, if they think that this argument about Railtrack is going to help them with the public, they are so fundamentally wrong that it is not true. The reality is that two railways issues impact on the British public: that it is an expensive, slow, uncertain and uncomfortable way of reaching a destination; and that it was privatised by Conservative Members. That is what the public know and what they will remember.
	If Conservative Members want to make any political progress at all—although when I listen to this type of debate I sometimes think that they do not—they will have to start by recognising that they got it very badly wrong on railways and try to move on to a new agenda.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend has made my point for me. Nevertheless, does he agree that this constant bluster from Conservative Members is simply a grotesque attempt to shift the blame from them to us for the mess that they created?

Clive Soley: My hon. Friend has made the point more briefly than I did.
	There are, as I indicated, several important issues wrapped up in the Opposition motion—several of which have been identified by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)—that cross party lines and are relevant to the debate. The first issue is parliamentary reform, which is in some respects what the Opposition seem to be talking about. The right hon. Member for Wokingham and other hon. Members have described what they regard as a lack of opportunity to hold Ministers to account. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall knows, the Modernisation Committee—which the Government established as soon as they won in 1997—has attempted to move the agenda forward to increase the House's effectiveness. However, we have almost always found ourselves fighting Conservative Members to make those changes.
	Westminster Hall is the first example of that conflict. I take some pride in Westminster Hall, especially because I was, I think, the first person to present to the Modernisation Committee a paper suggesting that we establish a second Chamber. Conservative Members opposed the proposal. Given that even I was not sure that Westminster Hall would work as well as it has, I suppose that that opposition was fair enough. The point, however, is that that Chamber has increased the number of opportunities to hold Ministers to account. Although I—like the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House, as I understand it—think that Westminster Hall is a remarkable success, I suspect that the majority of Ministers do not like it that much, because they are expected to go there far more often than they were ever expected to reply to debates and answer questions in this Chamber.
	Westminster Hall was a major achievement that was won in the face of early opposition from many Conservative Members who have now come round to seeing it as a good thing. If we tried to abolish Westminster Hall, which I am happy to say that we would not attempt to do, the outcry from Conservative Members who opposed it only a few years ago would be enormous.
	In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) said that a previous Conservative Government were the first to establish Select Committees. They were not the first Government to do that, as the House had Select Committees in the 19th century and, I think, in the early part of the 20th century. Nevertheless, those Committees lapsed. However, when the current Select Committee system became increasingly successful, Norman St. John-Stevas—who, on the Conservative side, deserves much of the credit for establishing it—fairly quickly found himself outside the Cabinet. I do not know whether Select Committees were the reason for his removal, but I do know that he was the author of the Special Standing Committee concept which enables the House to take evidence before legislating. Consequently, in the early 1980s, several Bills were considered in Special Standing Committees. However, as those Committees were an embarrassment to the then Government, that Government stopped using them. From 1983, I think, to about 1997, only one or two Special Standing Committees were convened; now, however, it is fairly common practice to hold them. They not only take evidence from the public but give the public an opportunity to influence legislation. Conservative Members had the opportunity to do all that from the early 1980s onwards but they did not take it.
	I am sorry that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) has left the Chamber, although I am sure that he has done so for good reason, because I want to take up one of the points that he made in his speech. He said that he was a political adviser to the previous Conservative Prime Minister, John Major, and he went on to complain about the way in which the current Government manipulate the news. As the Opposition motion states, he does not approve of the Government's "news management" strategy. The hon. Gentleman, however, presumably was the political adviser advising John Major when he—rightly, but secretly, without telling the House and denying the fact—opened talks with Sinn Fein.
	In their own terms, the then Government's reason for deciding on secrecy were good enough: it was their dependence on the votes of Unionist Members to stay in power. It was a political decision. From the speech of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, however, I presume that he told John Major, "We must open up this debate and tell the television channels in time for the 6 and 10 o'clock news that we are having secret talks with Sinn Fein." Of course the hon. Gentleman said no such thing. When I hear Conservative Members talk about news management, I realise why the previous Conservative Government got into so much difficulty on double standards.

Hugo Swire: If the talks to which the hon. Gentleman has referred were secret, how could the then Prime Minister tell the House about them either before or while they were being held?

Clive Soley: That is my point. The then Prime Minister kept them secret because he needed the political support of Unionist Members. In reality, however, an awful lot of hon. Members and people in the media knew that those talks were being held. Indeed, the vast majority of hon. Members supported those discussions. However, Conservative Members could not go public on the talks because their Government depended on the Unionist votes.
	Conservative Members sometimes talk as though spin has just been invented, but that is not so. Occasionally, both the media and politicians spin, as I shall describe later. First, however, I should remind Conservative Members of Bernard Ingham, of whom we were reminded by the hon. Member for North Cornwall. Bernard Ingham was a civil servant, but he was referred to as Margaret Thatcher's "handbag" by the media, many hon. Members and many members of the public because he was occasionally known to go round duffing up the Opposition. On one occasion, I wandered by mistake into one of his press briefings and heard him lambasting the Labour party. He saw such activity as a perfectly normal part of his role.

Paul Tyler: I think, in all fairness, that we should point out that Bernard Ingham duffed up Conservative Members rather more effectively than he did Opposition Members.

Clive Soley: There is a lot of truth in that. The hon. Gentleman has also given the example of Bernard Ingham describing one Cabinet Minister, John Biffen, as "semi-detached", not long after which he was out of the Cabinet.
	The relationship between Margaret Thatcher and Bernard Ingham was very close, very important to the success of that Conservative Government and very effective. What they did, however, was to manipulate the news in a big way. When they chose to do so, they would also undermine Conservative Members. They also continued the policy which has been operated under various Governments of trying to present the news in the best possible manner for themselves. That is why I should like to have a bit more common sense in the debate.
	Today and in previous debates, various hon. Members have mentioned Jo Moore. I think that the hon. Member for North Cornwall was right to say that much more is being made of that matter than need be. I should tell the House—I do not know whether it is a declaration of interest—that Jo Moore worked for me on one occasion, when I was the shadow housing Minister. She is a very capable press and media officer. That does not justify her comments on that occasion, as they were by any standard gross and incredibly insensitive. As many hon. Members know, the incident has probably also ruined her career—[Interruption.] It is true.
	As Opposition Members have said, one could fire someone who has acted in that manner. However, one would probably run into trouble with an industrial tribunal if one were to fire her on that basis. What Opposition Members are really asking us to do is to lean on such people to resign, but the reality is that the Minister, not the civil servant, is accountable.
	We try to maintain a rather artificial distinction between civil servants and political advisers. In the United States, all such people are political appointees. I do not want to go down that road, but it is impossible to maintain an absolute distinction. A couple of years ago, as chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, I went to a meeting in Paris with the French and British Foreign Secretaries and various officials. The French Socialist party members, civil servants and advisers all entertained us at lunch in the French Foreign Office. They all talked about foreign policy issues, regardless of their different roles. I am not saying that the French system is better than ours, but it is more honest. There is a role for political advisers.
	I suspect that Jo Moore got into so much trouble because of the constant tug of war between civil servants and political advisers. The Conservative party in government had the same problem. Political advisers feel that they are being kept out of the Government machine but they want to be in there to protect their Minister for a policy or a position that is dependent on a political party. Unless we recognise that, the tensions will continue. We need a slightly more relaxed attitude to get the balance right. Political advisers should not need to have battles with civil servants about their level of involvement or information. There is no simple answer, but the French way seems to have more common sense to it than ours.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is trying to excuse the Government's spinning by comparison with the Conservative Government, but it is incontrovertible that the Labour Government make numerous announcements to the press before making them to Parliament. For example, today an important announcement on the abolition of the rough sleepers unit was made by the Prime Minister to the press. Does the hon. Gentleman approve of that, or is it bad for Parliament and bad for democracy?

Clive Soley: It is not as black and white as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but there is certainly a problem that we need to work on. I am saying not that the Government are wholly innocent but that if every single item has to be announced in the House, the Government, of whatever party, will spend all their time on announcements here. One needs to decide what to announce here and what to announce outside.

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman says that the issue of announcements being made to the House or to the press is not black and white. Does he think it right that advisers at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions made available to the press the minutes of the meeting on 25 July between the chairman of Railtrack and the Secretary of State nearly two hours before they were made available to the Select Committee?

Clive Soley: I would normally expect papers to be made available to the Select Committee, but not necessarily first.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Why not?

Clive Soley: Because it depends on what the papers are and what the decision is. The primary issue is whether we feel that the papers should be made available to the public, after which there is a decision about whether that is done through Parliament or through a public statement. It might be perfectly in order to choose the latter. As I understand it, the Speaker normally expects major statements—not all statements—to be made in the House first. If every announcement had to be made here, the Government would never issue a press release on anything. It is not clear cut. One has to draw a line.

Mark Hendrick: Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems somewhat strange for the Opposition to complain on the one hand that everything is being covered up and kept from them and on the other that the Government are too keen to give information to the press and the public?

Clive Soley: Indeed. There is a constant tug of war. We are being asked to give more and more information. That is right. We should have open government. I am surprised that we have not made more progress with the Freedom of Information Bill, but the motion does not mention that. The motion is a mess, frankly. There is a case for giving the public more information, but how we do it depends on the nature of the information and the situation at the time. There is a difficult judgment for the Speaker on whether it should have been given to the House first.
	I have dealt with the press over many years and recently wrote a book on the subject. We need to step back from the argument about news management and take a long, hard look at it. Spinning has gone on since time immemorial. Let us be honest: no one is going to say, "Here's a bad story about me. I want to issue it now to get maximum publicity." If any politician or party wants to kid anyone that they do anything other than try to manage the news, no one will believe them. It is not an unreasonable thing to do. No private organisations, including businesses, voluntary groups and charities with the holiest of reputations, will give maximum exposure to anything that is embarrassing to them.
	We should all recognise—[Interruption.] Do not worry. I have sent that pager message back marked "Not known at this address".
	The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale says that we should stop news management and simply issue the stories as they emerge. Can anyone imagine people in the Tory party eagerly issuing a story that humiliates them in time for the evening television news and the next day's press? Of course not, although at certain points over the past few years, it seemed that they were indeed doing that—but I always put it down to political incompetence rather than moral purity.
	Any organisation will try to present itself in the best light. We must be as honest as possible about the news and recognise that it is important not to lie—and there are even exceptions to that, as we all know: at times, in war or on crucial economic issues, politicians find themselves in the difficult position of having to cover something up in order to prevent a worse disaster. The use of troops is perhaps the time-honoured example.

Eric Pickles: If the messenger who is spinning the news becomes the issue—as someone very distinguished put it a year ago—is it time for that messenger to go?

Clive Soley: It can be, although I would not want to say so categorically. Bernard Ingham was the equivalent of Alastair Campbell, and the two were both effective at operating the relationship between the media and politics for their respective political parties. We should be honest and say that we know that it happens.
	The second issue concerns the media, members of which often talk as though it is only the politicians who spin. The reality is that the media spin too. All Members of Parliament will know that journalists often say, "Do not use that story first" and then give a reason why it should not be used yet. Or a journalist might suggest developing another part of the argument first. We know that that happens. What matters in the end is that the relationship between the media and politics is robust enough to withstand the rows and disagreements, and for the media to expose what the politicians are trying to hide. However, no one should believe that either side is pure, in some moral sense. Indeed, it was the late Enoch Powell who said that for politicians to complain about the press was like sailors complaining about the sea. That is equally true the other way round, and the media and politicians should recognise the need to co-operate on stories at times, as well trying to conceal them from each other. I could give several examples, but I shall move on.
	The motion also mentions the way in which we use Parliament. During both the Falklands war and the Gulf war, I cannot remember how many debates we had, but the number was minimal. During the present situation in Afghanistan, we have had on average a debate a fortnight. We never had that under the previous Government, and it is one of several areas in which we have been much more open.
	The Conservatives have also laid themselves wide open in tabling a motion on standards in Government and in Parliament. My advice is that they should acknowledge that many members of the Conservative party in Parliament got things badly wrong, in terms of honesty and integrity, in the last 10 years of their time in government. Many people would say that John Major was a good man, but he could not prevent his Back Benchers taking cash for questions. However, the motion suggests that standards have deteriorated. Whatever else the British public believe, they do not believe that standards have deteriorated. There are no stories about cash for questions any more. Instead, we have codes of conduct for Ministers and the party funding regulations, which have dramatically limited how parties can collect and spend money in a way not seen since the first legislation to restrict parties' spending in the 19th century.
	The legislation on party funding causes problems for all of us. It is difficult to find people to be the local party secretary, because they discover that it is a criminal offence not to reveal certain information about how much money the party receives. We have never asked voluntary organisations to bear that burden before, but that is what political parties now have to do. That is a huge jump forward for political accountability and integrity, and the public know that. No party will be wholly clean, because people slip up and a few are just dishonest. They are in a minority, however, and we should keep it that way. In any case, for the Conservative party to table a motion that suggests that standards have deteriorated is plain wrong.
	The motion is a mess and tries to cover too many issues. We are using Parliament better to hold Ministers to account, but we still have not got it right. The standard of integrity for MPs is better than it was and is still improving. The Conservatives know that they must never again get into the mess they got into in the 1990s. However, we still have not resolved the problem of the relationships between political parties and civil servants. We expect our Ministers to have political advisers—they are necessary in a complex modern Parliament—but at the same time, they must be accommodated in the system, not in a way that makes them civil servants but that recognises the importance of their job.
	The Government are broadly on the right track in terms of restoring honesty and integrity to Parliament and to public life generally. We are also reforming Parliament and making Ministers and the Government more accountable. The debate on spin between media and politicians is alive and well, as it will probably still be in 100 years time. We should exercise some common sense about the issues, instead of trying to focus on one aspect. It is a complex area, but the standards being set now are an improvement and the Conservatives would do well to remember that. If they really want to vote on this weird motion, they can do so, but they will not win the vote and even if they did, I doubt that they would know what it meant anyway.

Anne McIntosh: In so far as the motion relates to transport, I wish to declare my interest in Railtrack, First Group, Eurotunnel and the RAC. I am delighted that we are discussing the Government's record on compiling and disseminating information, especially against the background of the claim by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) that they were re-elected on a platform of open government. However, the freedom of information legislation has been famously delayed.
	We cannot even get the Government, or individual Ministers, to answer straight questions with a straight answer on the Floor of the House, by written answer or in Select Committee proceedings, which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) mentioned. I shall share some gems with the House. I tabled a question on 16 November, which was finally answered on 22 November, about the Strategic Rail Authority's recommendation to grant a 20-year franchise to GNER on the east coast route. The Secretary of State decided on a two-year extension to the current franchise, but by that time the two bidders, GNER and Virgin, had spent £4 million each on the bid for the renewed franchise. I asked the Secretary of State why he had rejected the SRA's advice but answer came there none.
	I was referred to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), which claimed that the date of the draft legislation directing the Secretary of State to overrule the Rail Regulator and give powers of direction could not be released. The written answer claimed that it was not in the public interest to disclose internal departmental communications which were, in effect, draft orders due to come before the House. Since when was draft legislation considered an internal communication, especially when it was intended to block the interim review application from being considered and applied for by the rail regulator?
	In his evidence to the Select Committee on 7 November, the Rail Regulator referred to his shock. He said:
	"Mr. Byers said that they had thought of that"—
	that Railtrack would apply for an interim review—
	"and that if such an application were made, he"—
	the Secretary of State—
	"had the necessary authority immediately to introduce emergency legislation to entitle the Secretary of State to give instructions to the Regulator. After pausing to consider whether I had really heard what I had just heard, I asked whether that would be to over-rule me in an interim review or in relation to all my functions. Mr. Byers said that it would cover everything but that its first use would be in relation to an interim review which the Government did not want to proceed . . . I added that taking me under political control would go entirely against the grain of the major theme of the Government's policy position in the General Election campaign, which was about getting private sector capital into the provision of public services. I told them that such a step would do considerable harm to the ability of the Government to get companies to put money into public projects."
	The significance of the date of the draft orders should not be overlooked. The date may have been as early as July, August or September this year, so it could be proved that the Secretary of State allowed the market in Railtrack shares to continue long after he first considered putting the company into administration.
	In defence of the Secretary of State, however, he is not alone. I have written to Mr. Speaker to seek his guidance about correspondence that I sent to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on behalf of my constituents and to which she has not yet replied. That correspondence dates back to June, July, August and September of this year. Indeed, the failure of the right hon. Lady to reply has become the subject of a "Dear Colleague" letter of 14 November, in which she gives an explanation, in effect, and almost apologises although she does not actually excuse her Department.
	I shall not refer to the letter as right hon. and hon. Members will have already received it. However, another letter has come into my possession—I am not entirely sure whence it came. It is a "Dear John" letter—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"]—not to my husband John, or even to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) who is in the Chamber this evening; it is a "Dear John" letter from "Dear Tony". Yes, indeed. I have a letter from the Prime Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister in which he writes:
	"The way we as a Government deal with communications from the public reflects our attitude towards those contacting us. I regard the letters, telephone calls and e-mails that we receive as being extremely important. They give a useful insight into the way the public thinks. Too often correspondence is seen as the poor relation and although over the last few years we have made good progress in the way Departments handle all forms of correspondence, I believe there is still more that can be done.
	Staff in all Departments continue to do a fantastic job coping with the vast amount of correspondence received each year. Ministers too need to ensure that they are doing their bit by supporting staff, being clear about their requirements and making certain that they sign off letters on time."
	What a pity that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs could not heed that advice.
	I return to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—caught in a minibus in Tyneside, thus preventing his attendance in the House—and support the call made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside. In fact, we requested that the minutes of the meeting held between the Secretary of State and the chairman of Railtrack be made public—or at least be passed to members of the Select Committee. What a tortuous exchange that was. We could not even get the Secretary of State to say whether, yes, he would release the minutes or, no, he would not. In fact, he said, in effect, "If it would be helpful, I would wish to be helpful".
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead pointed out, the timing of the release of the minutes is not without significance. I was phoned by the Clerk of the Select Committee—the first time I can recall that happening—who told me that the papers were on the Board. That was at 5 o'clock last Tuesday, when the Secretary of State—

John Pugh: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Anne McIntosh: I hope to finish my remarks soon, in order to give the hon. Gentleman time to make his speech.
	The event that I described is not normal practice. I realised only subsequently that the press and media—indeed, only certain chosen members of the press corps—were given an advance copy at 3.35 pm, just as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was rising to his feet to give his pre-Budget report. If that is not an example of cynical news management, I do not know what is.
	Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, I attach great importance and value to the work of the Select Committee and to my membership of it, under the august and robust chairmanship of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). It shows gross discourtesy and a lack of respect for the Committee that the press were given the minutes before—about an hour and a half before—they were received by members of the Committee. The minutes did not even give a full account; not for the first time the discrepancy between the minutes and the Railtrack chairman's recollection of the meeting was revealed.
	The Select Committee invited the Treasury team to give evidence on aspects of the rail franchise renewals procedure, especially the public sector borrowing requirement, on which only a Treasury Minister is accountable. Even the Leader of the House had to admit that no Treasury Minister had appeared before a Transport Select Committee since 1999. Treasury Ministers still refuse to attend the Committee.
	Furthermore, why has the Secretary of State blocked the publication of any figures showing the increasing delays on the rail network since Railtrack went into administration? Could it be because such figures reveal a 45 per cent. increase in delays? Again, the culture of secrecy prevails over the spirit of openness.
	We still await details as to what shape the son of Railtrack will take. That is a matter of great urgency. It is of such importance that I have received a letter from the chief executive of GNER, who states:
	"Clearly there is a difficult balance to be struck between wanting to get the right solution for Railtrack and not rushing into a fudge. On the other hand, if it drags on for ages it will be disastrous for the railway industry in terms of falling morale."
	The evidence of that falling morale is there for all to see.
	I commend and support the motion. I hope that the House will draw its own conclusions: as well as the pursuit of a cynical news management strategy, there is a culture of secrecy and inefficiency, all of which I deplore.

John Pugh: My contribution will be brief and, I hope, constructive, with a positive suggestion at the end.
	I approached the discussion of recent events in relation to transport with a relatively open mind. I have no hidden agenda. I am certainly no lover of Railtrack whose demise I regard as inevitable. It was a flawed project: massive public investment can never be coupled with private profit.
	Furthermore, I have no difficulty with the Secretary of State's proposal for a not-for-profit company. Like the right hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members, my feelings are with the travelling public—not only because of correspondence from my constituents, but because I was turfed off a train at 6 o'clock this morning due to poor maintenance. It is probably unfair to mention the company and perhaps I should not refer to Arriva, but I was badly served—as much as anything else by the outcome of privatisation.
	I believed that the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions provided a substantial counterweight to an overweening, over-dominant Executive; and that the model it offered for holding the Executive to account was so powerful and rigorous that it would be marketed to local authorities in the form of scrutiny committees that they would all be empowered to establish. I came to the debate with those thoughts: I had no prior agenda. However, I have had to change my mind and have come to share some of the concerns that have been voiced by Opposition Members.
	I have listened while Ministers, the Strategic Rail Authority and the Rail Regulator gave their accounts of the uproar that surrounded the demise of Railtrack. I have listened to the accusations of bullying, and it is as though people have had to be separated after rowing in a school yard. As a former school teacher, I am sensitive to the fact that there is more than one side to the story in any accusation of bullying.
	I do not side with Mr. Winsor or with the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, but there is a flaw in the Secretary of State's approach. Whenever and wherever he has endeavoured to prove his side of the story, he has failed to do so. In the latest episode, the minutes released last Tuesday were supposed to bear out the Government's view, but, at the critical moment, the pens were put down and the evidence is simply not there. In the bits of paper that really count, there are no notes on the items that we wish to investigate.
	To persist with the analogy, it is as though the bully had offered to get a note from his mum as verification, but had returned without it. In those circumstances, in a school or elsewhere, we know that something is afoot. Regrettably, that is what I have had to conclude. Often in cases of bullying, where people are not completely open and frank, someone else is behind the story that people need to investigate, and I have come to the conclusion that it is the Treasury in this case. The Treasury has been deeply implicated at operational level in all the major decisions surrounding the railways.

Louise Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his definition of a bully? Is the Secretary of State, who is acting in the public interest a bully; or is Railtrack, which is gobbling up public funds and facing a deficit of £3.5 billion, the real bully?

John Pugh: I do not want to enter into a discussion on whether bullying has taken place in this case. All I can say is that, if there is a bully, it is probably not the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; it is probably the Treasury. I have served on the Transport Committee and listened to what people say, and the experience of everyone in the industry—the witnesses who gave evidence to the Select Committee, Bob Kiley and all the seasoned commentators—clearly shows that the Treasury's hand is behind almost the entire plot, but Treasury Ministers will not allow their role to be scrutinised. That strikes me as like turning the Select Committee into a charade.
	Every intelligent political observer in the land knows the extent of Treasury policy involvement in all the key Departments, and it is disingenuous of Treasury Ministers not to appear before the Select Committee. If they cannot and will not appear before the Transport Committee, given the manifest evidence of their involvement in railway affairs, the outlook for Select Committees is grim. If their policy involvement is as pervasive as I believe it to be—not only in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, but in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Health—Ministers who give evidence to Select Committees are like a kind human shield for the Chancellor, and Select Committees are doomed to interview a selection of monkeys while the organ grinder grinds on.
	A Treasury that calls the shots but lets others take the flak represents not only bad news for Ministers' careers, but an appalling abuse of parliamentary government. The Minister turns around to talk to one of his hon. Friends, but one of the things that he could do to reassure the Opposition more than anything else would be to say that the Government have changed their mind, that they have been convinced by the arguments and that Treasury Ministers will soon appear before the Select Committee.

Theresa May: I am pleased to respond to this interesting debate. The fact that I am doing so reflects the importance that the official Opposition attach to the issue of access to Government information and, in particular, to the behaviour of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in refusing to provide information to Members, in making disputed statements to the House and, of course, in presiding over chaos and increased delays on the railways. I am here; where is he? [Hon. Members: "Where is he?"] All I can say is that it is a very long minibus trip to see a bridge on Tyneside, North. The answer is that he is not here because he is frit. He does not want to come to the House.
	"The first right of a citizen in any mature democracy should be the right to information. It is time to sweep away the cobwebs of secrecy which hang over far too much government activity".
	Those are not my words, but those used by the Prime Minister in the John Smith memorial lecture in 1996.
	Today we have debated how far this Labour Government have departed from that ideal. Let me make it clear to the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, who opened the debate for the Government, that this is not an attack on civil servants, and her claim that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) made such an attack in his excellent speech was entirely unjustified. Perhaps she would now like to apologise for making that claim. She is not willing to do so.
	We know where responsibility lies; it lies not with civil servants, but with Ministers. Ministers refuse to answer questions, and the Secretary of State who has made disputed statements in the House has refused to come to the House tonight to explain himself. It is little wonder that he is frightened to do so, given that virtually every time he makes a statement on Railtrack in the House it is disputed afterwards.
	I am not surprised that he is frightened to come to the House, given the views of his hon. Friends. He cannot rely on Labour Back Benchers any longer. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) talked about the meeting between the Secretary of State and the chairman of Railtrack on 25 July and explained that the official minutes did not tell her whether or not she could believe the Secretary of State.

Louise Ellman: Does the hon. Lady recall the fact that I added to that comment by saying that the minutes did not prove whether the chairman of Railtrack was correct? Indeed, I suggested that although the Secretary of State was accountable to the House, the chairman of Railtrack was not and that because of his fiduciary duty he might have had a motive in not telling the truth.

Theresa May: I have a little tip for the hon. Lady for when she intervenes in future: it is the phrase, "If you are in a hole, stop digging."
	The Secretary of State cannot rely on his Cabinet colleagues. I was interested to see that, when he responds to debates on this matter, he does not have a single member of the Cabinet alongside him, whereas a member of the Cabinet is supporting the Minister for Transport in this debate. It is also interesting that, on 22 November, The Guardian—[Interruption.] Mention of that newspaper excites Labour Members, but it stated:
	"Relations between the Chancellor . . . and the transport secretary . . . were strained last night when it emerged that the Treasury had embarked on a constitutional conflict with parliament by refusing point blank to answer MPs' questions about rail funding."
	Was it not also interesting that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer listed the brilliant spending Ministers in this Government in an article in The Times on 22 November one name was missing? Whose? It was that of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
	The Secretary of State cannot rely even on the Prime Minister to support him because, as we learned from The Times last week:
	"Downing Street has issued an official reprimand to . . . the Transport Department for 'contaminating' the autumn Pre-Budget Statement on Tuesday by sparking a fresh row over spin-doctors."
	Little wonder that the rest of the Government are distancing themselves from the Secretary of State, given his treatment of hon. Members, as shown in the examples given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). My right hon. Friend has been doing the House an excellent service in assiduously trying to wheedle the truth out of Ministers and has been blocked at every turn, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), whose telling questions on the Select Committee have revealed the extent of the Secretary of State's weasel words.
	We are talking about a Government who in their ministerial code say:
	"Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public".
	On 27 November, I asked the Secretary of State
	"on what date he instructed parliamentary drafters to draft.. the Railway Administration Order Rules 2001 and . . . the legislation to give him power to direct the Rail Regulator"?
	I was told:
	"Details of internal communications are exempt from disclosure under section 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information."—[Official Report, 27 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 746W.]
	That part of the code relates to information whose disclosure would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion. How on earth does giving a date harm the candour and frankness of internal discussion?
	Such a refusal to give details on such a question is what made the parliamentary ombudsman take the Home Office to task in his report. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale pointed out, that was the first time that a Department had refused to respond to the actions required by the parliamentary ombudsman. The ministerial code means nothing to the Government and their Ministers.
	Let us look at the minute of the meeting of 25 July between the Secretary of State and the chairman of Railtrack. It was requested by members of the Select Committee, who were not the first Members of this House to do so. I tabled a question asking for the note and was told that it could not be disclosed. Then—what a surprise!—the Secretary of State indicated that he might be helpful to the Select Committee, although he was helpful to four selected newspapers before he was helpful to the Committee. The selective briefing of a note did not substantiate the Secretary of State's claims in the House.
	The Minister for Transport, who will respond to this debate, was present at the meeting of 25 July. The Secretary of State said in this House that the chairman of Railtrack said at the meeting that
	"unless extra financial assistance from the Government was provided, on 8 November, when Railtrack was due to give its interim results, it would be unable to make the critical statement that it was 'a going concern'."—[Official Report, 5 November 2001; Vol. 374, c.19.]
	Does the Minister agree that that was said by the chairman of Railtrack at that meeting?

John Spellar: Yes.

Theresa May: Will the Minister put it on the record, rather than saying so from a sedentary position?

John Spellar: rose—

Chris Grayling: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Theresa May: Yes.

Chris Grayling: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister accepted at the Select Committee meeting that no such request for financial assistance had been made? I am a little confused by the Minister's response.

Theresa May: I think that we are all confused by the Minister's response, given that the official minute does not substantiate the Secretary of State's claim, as the Minister has just reiterated. Indeed, the chairman of Railtrack has disputed what the Secretary of State said. He disputed it publicly on "Today" on Radio 4.
	This is not simply about what the Secretary of State has said to Members. This is an important matter because of its impact on the railways and the travelling public; and it is important because as a result of what the Secretary of State has done, the Government may face legal action. The Railtrack shareholders action group has today written to the Secretary of State and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions requesting certain documents. The group has said that it has been hampered in its ability to obtain all the relevant facts, most notably by the Secretary of State's inconsistent account of events. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Theresa May: There was inconsistency regarding the project Renewco and the minutes of the meeting on 25 July. There is inconsistency between the evidence given by the Secretary of State to the Select Committee that Railtrack was in financial meltdown and that given by Railtrack's directors that the company was solvent prior to the Secretary of State's actions.
	We have seen inconsistency from the Secretary of State at every turn. It is important because it may land the Government in legal action; it is important because of how much it will cost the taxpayer, which the Government simply do not know; and it is important because of the impact that the Secretary of State's shoddy handling of this sorry saga is having on the railways and on rail passengers. There has been a 45 per cent. increase in delays since administration. Phase 2 west coast main line upgrade—forget it. Special purpose vehicle for improvements to South Central—abandoned. The travelling public know the misery of the railways under the thin controller that is the Secretary of State.
	Since Railtrack was put into administration on 7 October, the Secretary of State has made disputed statements to the House, his memory of events has been found wanting, there have been indications that he may have misled the House, he has blocked questions from Members of Parliament, he has threatened the Rail Regulator, jeopardised future private sector investment in the railway, presided over increased train delays, contaminated the Chancellor's autumn statement and been reprimanded by No. 10 Downing street—and he does not even have the guts to come to the House and explain himself.
	It is time for the Secretary of State to come clean. His cunning plan has failed. The railways are in a mess. The public are waiting—they are waiting for answers, they are waiting for their trains and they are waiting for the Secretary of State to go.

John Spellar: It was deja vu all over again tonight. In our last debate, I said that history repeats itself—in the first debate as tragedy and in the second as farce. Today was unmitigated tedium. I have had to sit here suffering it—Conservative Members did not even bother to stay. Even when the winding-up speeches started, they managed only a dozen on the Back Benches. At one stage, only two Conservative Members were here, but we will come back to that in a minute. They could not keep the crowd, even when their own were speaking. Old Trafford on a Saturday does not compare with the numbers streaming away from the debate.
	We must look at what this is about. It is about the sort of game playing that was revealed by the memorandum of the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). It bears further consideration. He gave some thoughts of the Conservative party's possible approaches to the new Parliament, saying:
	"I believe that we should Consider dividing the Parliamentary party into four or five groups each with a mixture of experienced and new Members."
	Tonight we have had the experienced, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), and the new, the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). That was the lot, but at least the Conservatives achieved their objective of getting the right balance.

John Redwood: Instead of giving us this childish drivel, will the Minister answer the questions that we have asked in the debate? Will he tell the travelling public how much money is available, when Railtrack will come out of administration and who can bid?

John Spellar: I know that it is childish drivel, but the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst wrote it. He continues:
	"The group would undertake to cover all the business from 2.30 to after 10.00pm including as many divisions as necessary. Colleagues could arrange to 'trade' days"—
	the trading mechanism obviously broke down today—
	"and a full turnout would be mounted once a month".

Theresa May: The Minister is very keen to talk about matters for which he does not have responsibility. As Minister for Transport, he has responsibility for the running of the railways now that Railtrack is in administration. Will he answer the question? How long will Railtrack be in administration, and how much will it cost the taxpayer?

John Spellar: Had the Conservative party wanted a debate on the railways and Railtrack, it would have tabled a motion to that effect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) said in response to the right hon. Member for Wokingham. How the right hon. Gentleman must suffer, seeing the mess that Conservative Front Benchers are making—how he must grieve. That was the issue that he tried to raise, but that is not what we have had from the Opposition. Instead, we have had endless trivia and dross. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

John Spellar: The key point about this evening's debate—

Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does the statement made by Mr. Speaker last week extend to the right of the Opposition to have an answer to the questions put in the course of a debate? This goes to the heart of Mr. Speaker's statement.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Minister must relate his remarks to the motion on the Order Paper.

John Spellar: I am also responding to the debate—or rather the lack of it. I have to confess that I am not responsible for the fact that we are being subjected to such a load of political trivia and nitpicking from the Opposition. It is interesting that Opposition Members are getting up to defend the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—who, heaven help us, is the MP for the area where my London house is—when he does not want to explain things himself. His memorandum and the motion demonstrate a degree of disregard and contempt for the Commons.

Chris Grayling: While the right hon. Gentleman is on the subject of contempt for the Commons, will he explain why last week, as a member of a Select Committee, I received the papers on the minute of the meeting of 25 July, to which hon. Members have referred, after it had been distributed to members of the national media?

John Spellar: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman attacks the civil service for distributing material that had to go out on that day. Given the likelihood of it being leaked, it also had to be distributed appropriately to the press. If Opposition Members want to claim that they never leak Select Committee documents to the press, I will be interested to hear them make that argument stand up.
	The memorandum from the shadow Leader of the House went on to mention other actions that the Conservatives would have to take. It stated:
	"The responsibilities which involve . . . travel and time away from Westminster should be allocated to colleagues who are likely to be here very little anyway, and ideally not to those who could contribute significantly to Chamber or Committee work."
	Obviously quite a few Conservative Members must be part of that category because very few bothered to turn up for the debate. The shadow Leader of the House, the shadow Chief Whip and the shadow deputy Chief Whip had to bomb around and intervene because they could not find Back Benchers to do the job. That is the state to which the modern Conservative party has sunk, and I will return to that when I comment on the role of the Liberal Democrats.
	The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) began with some confessions, and he asked for several other offences to be taken into consideration. He was not entirely forthcoming about his complete role. He was press secretary to John Major in 1992, director of communications for the Conservative party from 1992 to 1995, a member of the Prime Minister's policy unit at Downing street in 1995 and media consultant to the Conservative party chairman from 1995 to 1997. Those were, of course, periods of immense success for the Conservative party. I gather that they will be published under "Tim Collins: The Golden Years".

Tim Collins: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect his leader, the Prime Minister, ever to secure as many votes as John Major did when I was his press secretary, because in two elections so far he has not come within 35 per cent. of doing so?

John Spellar: As I have said before, and may even say in my rousing peroration, in two general elections—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will all hon. Members who contribute to the debate relate their remarks to the motion? That includes interventions.

John Spellar: I am of course dealing with the issues that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale thought pertinent to raise in his introductory remarks, one of which was his history.
	During the Wirral, South by-election, the then chairman of the Tory party said:
	"Mr. Collins's job is to harry and harass Labour"—
	the Tories do not want to hear this—
	"at every turn to ensure that it does not inflict such a humiliating defeat that voters go to the polls in the general election with a stirring victory for Labour still fresh in their"—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the Minister and all hon. Members to concentrate their remarks on the subject of the debate.

John Spellar: I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I merely point out that there was a 17.2 per cent. swing to Labour in that election.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made a fairly lengthy contribution in which he talked about openness and accuracy. We presume that he was not referring to Liberal "Focus" leaflets.
	Another person who made an appearance during the debate was Mr. Bernard Ingham, now Sir Bernard Ingham, whose actions Conservative Members defended. In a previous debate on the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) drew attention to the fact that
	"Bernard Ingham ordered Colette Bowe, chief of information at the Department of Trade and Industry, to leak the letter to the detriment of Michael Heseltine. She was a conscientious civil servant and she refused to do that. Ingham said to her:
	'You'll . . . well do what you're . . . well told.'
	The letter was leaked and when Ingham was asked about his conduct, he said in a speech to the Independent Broadcasting Association:
	'I must tell you that I—and I am sure my colleagues—have never regarded the Official Secrets Act as a constraint on my operations. Indeed, I regard myself as licensed to break that law as and when I judge necessary; and I suppose it is necessary to break it every other minute of every working day, though I confess the issue is so academic that I have not bothered to seek counsel's advice.'"—[Official Report, 23 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 175.]
	That was how Bernard Ingham saw his role.
	The right hon. Member for Wokingham attempted to move the debate on to the railways but, surprisingly enough, that was not the subject of the motion. However, it is interesting, in the Holmesian sense of the dogs that did not bark, that no Conservative Member supported Railtrack. No one said what a good company it was or that privatisation was a tremendous and enormously successful wheeze, and that they could not understand how everything had gone wrong because John Major made such an impressive job of it. Equally, no one got up to say that Railtrack's management were doing such a good job that they could not understand why anyone thought it necessary to take action. No one mentioned that.

Chris Grayling: May I take the liberty of bringing the Minister closer to the subject of the debate? Will he explain why the evidence given to the Select Committee by the Secretary of State was directly contradicted by the permanent secretary in a letter to Sir Alastair Morton on 8 October?

John Spellar: This is extraordinary. I talk about the political and constitutional issues, and the Conservatives say, "Why aren't you talking about the railway?", so I talk about the railway, and now they do not want to talk about it. It is clear that none of them wanted to talk about compensation, although in previous debates they were up and down asking about it. Now that I have asked what we are compensating for, who are we supposed to be compensating and for how much, they have gone remarkably quiet. They are all shtoom on the issue of compensation. It is clear that they have not got a clue about what they should do or what their policy should be.
	It is in the public domain that I do not have much time for the Liberal Democrats, but their claim to be the Opposition party has, by default—

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We still have not had a ruling on Mr. Speaker's ruling on whether a Minister ought to reply to a question that is in order rather than evade it.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier comments.

John Spellar: Once again, the Tories have shown themselves to be bankrupt of ideas and bankrupt of argument. If ever—heaven forbid—they were let loose on the public finances, they would also once again bankrupt the country. It is clear how they managed to double the national debt in five short years. They are seriously fiscally incontinent and have no clue about how to run the country. That, more than any other reason, is why they will stay on the Opposition Benches for a long time to come and why we will get on with government. As I said in previous debates, the electorate have decided that the Tories are unfit for government. Tonight. the Tories have once again shown that they are not even fit for Opposition.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 157, Noes 279.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
	The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 160.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Madam Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House deplores the attempt by HM Opposition to draw attention away from their lack of coherent policies on public service improvement; welcomes the Government's determination to uphold the highest standards of integrity and honesty in public life; acknowledges that the Government has been open about the standards Ministers, Civil Servants and Special Advisers are expected to uphold; welcomes the publication of the new Ministerial code including the requirements on greater transparency never seen before, attaching the highest importance to the prompt and efficient handling of Parliamentary Questions and correspondence; and commends the professionalism and integrity with which the Government continues to conduct departmental business in the best traditions of public service.

Public Services

Madam Deputy Speaker: We now come to the funding of public services. I must announce that the Speaker has selected the manuscript amendment, which is available to Members in the Vote Office.

Michael Howard: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement to the House of 27th November has been contradicted in whole or in part by the Secretary of State for Health, the Chairman of the Labour Party and Mr. Derek Wanless; further notes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to endorse the statement made to the House by the Prime Minister on 28th November; and condemns the total confusion over funding the public services which these contradictions have caused among users and providers of these services.
	Last Tuesday was a black day for Britain's public services and was especially black for health care in Britain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in one breath, called for a debate on health care funding, then announced the result of that debate. It is no wonder that on Friday The Guardian reported one Minister as saying:
	"Gordon's idea of a debate is Gordon and a mirror".
	The conclusion of that one-man debate is that
	"a publicly funded national health service is best for Britain".
	The Chancellor arrived at that conclusion not because of any evidence but in the teeth of all the evidence, and did so despite the fact that the Prime Minister said less than two months ago that the barriers between public and private are coming down all over the world. The Chancellor arrived at his conclusion despite the fact that all the countries that provide their people with better health care than we do do not have such a system and despite the fact that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said only last week in its economic survey of the United Kingdom:
	"Overall, the current plans to provide services privately in sectors such as health and education are limited. Such services are provided on a much larger scale privately in many OECD countries and greater ambition in this respect would raise competition and performance in these sectors."
	The way in which the Chancellor reached his conclusions speaks volumes; it was the most bare-faced exercise in deception since he was deceived by the Prime Minister over sun-dried tomatoes in Granita all those years ago.
	The Chancellor relied on the Wanless report. He said:
	"So having examined whether a publicly funded national health service is sustainable . . . Mr. Wanless's view is that the principle of an NHS publicly funded through taxation . . . remains both the fairest and most efficient system for this country."—[Official Report, 27 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 838-39.]
	At all times last Tuesday the Chancellor gave the impression that Mr. Wanless had carried out an objective and authoritative inquiry into the best way to fund health care in this country. Of course, that was a million miles from the truth. First, the Chancellor fixed the terms of reference that he set Mr. Wanless so that Mr. Wanless could consider only a publicly funded health care model.
	The terms of reference asked Mr. Wanless to
	"identify the key factors which will determine the financial and other resources required to ensure that the NHS can provide a publicly funded service."
	Far from asking Mr. Wanless to look at different methods, the Chancellor told him not to do that; he asked a Labour question and he got a Labour answer.

Phil Hope: I have a simple question for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Will the Opposition match Labour's commitment to spending on the NHS and do they support an NHS based on clinical need, not on the ability to pay—his policy, which was leaked to the press?

Michael Howard: The hon. Gentleman has asked an interesting question—[Interruption.] Yes, I will answer it. The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would match Labour's spending commitment on the NHS. We do not know what that commitment is—[Interruption.] I am coming directly to the hon. Gentleman's question, which I shall answer in detail; he just needs to be patient for a moment and he will have a comprehensive answer.
	The references in the Wanless report to different systems of financing health care are all expressed in terms of their effect on the economy, itself a reflection on those terms of reference. They state that the report should allow the Chancellor
	"to consider the possible implications of this analysis for the Government's wider fiscal and economic strategies in the medium term and to inform decisions in the next public spending review in 2002."
	Most telling of all, the Chancellor's cover was blown within hours by Mr. Wanless himself. On Thursday, Mr. Wanless said:
	"I've not sought to bury anything for good. It would be quite presumptuous and premature for anybody to think they could do that. When the figures are available about what resources are likely to be required that's the time at which people will be looking at the financial options . . . Issues about precisely how they should be financed are . . . not for decision now."
	The Chancellor's own carefully picked appointee has given him the lie and directly contradicted him. When Mr. Wanless says that it would be premature and presumptuous of anybody to think that they could bury anything for good, who does the Chancellor think he had in mind? Who could he possibly be referring to but the Chancellor himself? The Chancellor's elaborate attempt to fix that exercise has collapsed about his ears.
	It was not just the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who "contaminated" the pre-Budget report last week; the Chancellor did so himself. His attempt to hoodwink everyone—the House, the nation, even the Prime Minister—has spectacularly imploded. It is not surprising that the Downing street spin machine swung into action.

John McFall: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Michael Howard: In a moment.
	The spin machine claimed that "everything's up for grabs"; that the Government were prepared to "think the unthinkable"; that Downing street is "less protective" than the Treasury; and that there are "no holds barred", but it was too late. On Tuesday the Chancellor had indeed barred the holds. He had boxed everyone in and slammed the door on the debate for which he himself had called. He has robbed our country of the opportunity for the better health care that we so desperately need.
	I give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Treasury.

John McFall: The right hon. and learned Gentleman uses the word "hoodwink" freely. So that we can get it straight and so that he does not hoodwink anyone, will he reflect on his party's manifesto, which stated that the Conservatives would provide a fully comprehensive NHS, free at the point of use? Does he intend to hoodwink people and deny that now?

Michael Howard: We certainly will provide an NHS that is fully comprehensive, and we will spell out our detailed proposals long before the next general election.

Kali Mountford: Is it still the policy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party to charge for some GP services? If so, which services does he intend to charge for?

Michael Howard: The hon. Lady will have to wait some time before she gets an answer to that question, but she will get it long before the next general election, when the British people will see exactly what we propose.

John McFall: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I asked the shadow Chancellor a question, and I am dismayed that he did not answer the second part, about whether the health service would be free at the point of use. Can you come to my aid and ensure that he answers it?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a point of debate, rather than a point of order.

Michael Howard: I want the Chancellor to answer some questions when he replies to the debate. I want him to confirm whether, as has been widely reported, the Health Secretary was told of the Chancellor's intentions only on Monday last week, 24 hours before his statement. The Health Secretary is reported to be "furious". [Hon. Members: "Where is he?"] Surely my hon. Friends would not expect the Health Secretary to come and support the Chancellor. We are told, for good measure, that the Prime Minister is also angry, on behalf of the Health Secretary.
	One of the most astonishing things about last week was that the Chancellor was disappointed by the coverage that his announcement received in the press on Wednesday. So what did he do? He cleared his diary and rushed down to Wapping to see The Sun. He told The Sun:
	"I am going to insist any additional resources must be matched by reforms so that we get the best value for money. There is not to be one penny more until we get the changes".
	That must have caused the Secretary of State for Health some alarm. After all, only 48 hours earlier he had been promised an extra £1 billion next year. No mention was made of any conditions. On Tuesday the Chancellor promises £1 billion, and on Thursday he says that the NHS must reform first. This is my first challenge to the Chancellor tonight: what exactly does he have in mind? When does he expect those reforms to be in place? What criteria will he use to decide whether to release the money? When will he make that decision, and when will he announce it?
	I can tell the Secretary of State for Health that he need not worry too much. The Chancellor has told The Sun exactly the same thing before. He wrote an article for The Sun on 15 July 1998, in which he stated:
	"We are determined you get value for every penny we spend to give you the public services you want. . . Unless standards and targets are met, they will lose money. It's payment by results."
	Nothing happened, however. Nothing happened in 1998, in 1999, last year or this year. The money has continued to pour in and, as the Government admit, much of it has been wasted.

Anne Campbell: As he is speaking of interviews, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman stand by his remarks in the Financial Times last week, that the NHS is a Stalinist creation?

Michael Howard: The NHS is indeed a Stalinist creation. [Interruption.] Yes, it is. That is the age in which it was born, and it does much more to hinder and hamper the efforts of those who work in it—who work heroically despite it—than it does to help them.
	Let us see how the evolving saga develops. After 18 years in opposition to consider these matters and after four years in government, what do the Government do? They set up a new committee. Once the Prime Minister got to know the terms of reference of the Wanless committee—he clearly did not know about them until they were produced in the House last Tuesday—he thought that he had better remind people of his own committee, the Adair Turner committee. So important was the Turner committee that the Prime Minister appeared to have forgotten all about it. The Chancellor certainly made no mention of it in his statement last Tuesday, yet on Friday night he was hurriedly dispatched to give an interview to "News at 10", giving the impression that it was an entirely new committee.
	It is worth reminding people of the Turner committee. It was set up in October. [Interruption.] Labour Members should be listening to what their Prime Minister's committee—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Keith Simpson: Mr. McNulty!

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The word "Order" applies to both sides of the House.

Michael Howard: I am interested that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), from his usual sedentary position, says that it is not worth reminding people of the Turner committee, but it is his Prime Minister's committee, not mine. The Prime Minister set it up. It was set up in October and asked to do what was described as "blue sky" thinking, looking
	"not less than five years and probably 10 to 15 years out".
	However, we were told that its conclusions would never be made public. The outcome, Downing street said, would be "private, for private thinking".
	My second challenge to the Chancellor is this: is that still the position, or have the Government changed their mind on that as well? Will we ever be told the conclusions of the Turner committee? If so, when? The Wanless committee is supposed to study the amount of money needed for health care. The Turner committee is supposed to examine the way in which health care is managed. It does not seem to have occurred to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor that there may be some connection between the two—between the way in which health care is financed and the way in which it is provided.
	What health care in this country needs is not more committees; it needs radical reform so that the dedicated doctors and nurses working in it can be helped, and not hampered by the structure in which they work. It needs action to ensure that the money wasted on the NHS—between £7 billion and £10 billion, according to reports this weekend—is no longer wasted. It needs to be able to put an end to the state of affairs in which people die in our country from illnesses that they would survive in other countries. It needs extra resources, in addition to those that can be provided out of general taxation.
	That is what happens in every other country with health care better than ours. It is what the OECD recommends, and what would offer the best prospect of bringing better health care to Britain. That is why today my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Health Secretary are in Stockholm, as part of a series of visits to learn from other health care systems in Europe and beyond. Our party has put health care reform at the very top of our agenda.
	Let no one be in any doubt about how badly we need better health care. Even the Prime Minister was unable last week to dispute the claims of his party chairman that far from improving, the national health service has gone backwards since 1997. Even Mr. Wanless says in his report:
	"Across a range of health outcome indicators, the picture which emerges is one of generally poor outcomes in the UK relative to comparator countries, with significant gaps between the UK and the best performers for key outcome measures."
	Even Sir Stephen Robson, a recent permanent secretary in the Treasury and someone who has worked very closely with the Chancellor, says:
	"Don't have breast cancer or lung cancer, don't want to go to accident and emergency, don't want to have a non-urgent operation in the UK—you'd be better off in continental Europe."
	This Government have made promise after promise on the health service. They have broken their promises, they are beginning to be rumbled, they have no idea what to do about it and the result is blind panic.
	So, is it any wonder that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are at sixes and sevens? Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister could not have been clearer. When asked whether it was still Government policy to raise health spending to the EU average by 2005, he replied, "Of course it is." The following day, the Leader of the House announced that he wanted to clarify that statement. We were told that when the Prime Minister had said 2005, he meant to say 2006. Conveniently, that means that he will have to be held to account after, rather than before, the likely date of the next general election.
	Then the Chancellor got in on the act. In his interview with The Sun, he refused to explain what the Prime Minister actually meant. He refused to say whether the promise applied to EU spending at the time mentioned in the Prime Minister's original promise or in 2005, so the Prime Minister's official spokesman was brought in. When he was asked to shed light on this appalling mess, he said:
	"the Prime Minister's words at PMQs this afternoon spoke for themselves".
	Unfortunately for him, the Prime Minister took a different view. Yesterday, he decided to downgrade what had been a firm commitment to the status of a mere aspiration "in broad terms"—the Chancellor smiles about that, as he has had his way—and the Secretary of State for Health yesterday described it as an aim.
	My third challenge for the Chancellor is this: will he now clarify matters? [Interruption.] Is it a firm commitment or a vague aspiration? Does it relate to European health spending in 2000, 2001, 2005 or 2006? Does it relate to averages including or excluding Britain? Are those averages weighted for population differences, or is Germany being given the same weight as Luxembourg? [Interruption.] And when will it be achieved: 2005, 2006, some time or never? [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not prepared to give way at this point.

Michael Howard: This is not some arcane, theoretical dispute, but a matter that is vital for the lives of every person in this country. The Chancellor must make the Government's position clear once and for all.
	The confusion does not end there. The Secretary of State for Health and the chairman of the Labour party are reported to have called for a hypothecated health tax. They are said to have the support of the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) has asked the Government to consider compulsory social insurance or a ring-fenced health tax. He said:
	"These systems must all be properly examined."
	So, my fourth challenge to the Chancellor is this: does he agree with his Cabinet colleagues and the right hon. Member for Hartlepool, or with the Treasury aide who described the idea of a hypothecated health tax as foolish? The Chancellor has called for a consensus, but he cannot achieve it even in his own Cabinet.
	If the Government, blinded by their prejudices against the private sector, refuse to put patients first, the Opposition will do so. We genuinely recognise that, in the words of the Prime Minister,
	"round the world, the barriers between public and private are coming down".
	Our overriding objective is to improve the quality of health care in Britain. We are not so arrogant as to believe that we can achieve better health care for the British people without learning from countries that have already achieved better health care for their people. We are not so dogmatic as to arrive at our opinions before embarking on our review and we are not so blinkered as to set the terms of reference, as the Chancellor did, so as to make the conclusions inevitable.
	The Government have demonstrated in the past few days that we will never get the health care that we need so long as they remain in power. We must show that we will do better, and that is exactly what we intend to do.

Gordon Brown: I beg to move, as a manuscript amendment, in line 1, leave out from "House" to end and add
	"welcomes the Pre-Budget Report with its emphasis on delivering high quality public services accessible to all in society as part of the Government's wider agenda to match resources with modernisation to progress reform; particularly welcomes Mr Derek Wanless's interim report "Securing our Future Health: Taking a Long-Term View", the first comprehensive look at the long term funding needs of the Health Service; notes Mr Wanless's conclusion that there is no evidence that any alternative financing method to the UK's would deliver a given quality of healthcare more equitably and at a lower cost to the economy; and reaffirms its support as stated by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor for future increases in public funding and NHS reform to ensure a comprehensive high quality service available on the basis of clinical need and not ability to pay."
	I shall answer all the detailed points that have been made and take interventions from the Opposition during my speech.

Michael Howard: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way!

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Gordon Brown: Before giving way, I want to set down our argument as a Government.

Michael Howard: Will the Chancellor give way?

Gordon Brown: I have said that I shall give way during my speech, but I want to set down my argument.
	First, we believe in a health service that is free at the point of need; the question that we must ask ourselves this evening is this: do the Opposition? Secondly, we believe in a health service that is principally funded from tax revenue—[Interruption.] Oh, indeed. The question is, do the Opposition? Thirdly, we believe in more investment in the health service, but the question is, do the Opposition? Fourthly, we believe in a continuing programme of reform in the health service, but do the Opposition still believe in the health service at all?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Treasury, asked the shadow Chancellor a very interesting question at the beginning of the debate. He asked whether the Opposition still believed in a comprehensive health service that was free at the point of use. At the general election, all Opposition Members had no doubt about the answer to that question. Individually, like us and the Liberals, they stood for election on a manifesto—I quote the Conservative one—that referred to
	"a comprehensive health service free to all its users."
	Why could not the shadow Chancellor repeat that commitment this evening?
	I shall tell the House why the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not do so, as I have in front of me the memorandum written by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) to the shadow Chancellor on 12 November. It is marked "Private and Confidential". I am sure that the Opposition now wish that it had been kept private and confidential. Let me refer to what the Flight memorandum, as we will now call it, said. [Interruption.] It answers the very big question about why the shadow Chancellor could not say that he supported a free health service at the point of need. I think that Opposition Members should listen, because this will feature in every constituency in the country.

Paul Goodman: Will the Chancellor give way?

Gordon Brown: I shall be very happy to give way after making this point. The memorandum said:
	"we remain vulnerable to the irritating attack that we are the Party who will be cutting back on healthcare expenditure to reduce taxation.
	We need to resolve and agree how we are going to break out of this, well ahead of the next General Election, or we will have the same problems of emasculation in this territory, that we had this summer. I believe most of our colleagues are looking to the Treasury Team to address this territory, but clearly the key is the fleshing out of the broad policy guidelines which IDS has set out in relation to healthcare."
	What is that broad policy guideline? The memorandum continues:
	"Quite logically, we will, therefore, be looking to lower the taxes on people at the same time, enabling them to have more of their own money to spend on better and more efficient healthcare . . . Put more simply, what Iain has already said in principle, with regard to healthcare, should have the corollary of reducing taxation to leave people with more of the income . . . to spend on the provision of improved healthcare."
	[Interruption.] Conservative Members should listen. We have reached the main point because the memorandum also states:
	"The reforms, which we will be proposing, will end the NHS monopoly and will entail those who can afford it making some payment for healthcare services."
	That is not simply a suggestion or idea. The deputy Treasury spokesman wrote that. [Interruption.] Conservative Members will have to face up to that in every constituency. I repeat:
	"The reforms which we will be proposing . . . will entail . . . some payment for healthcare services."
	The memorandum also states that solving problems will require
	"a degree of charging for healthcare service."
	[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor already regrets the debate. Should not we be told whether the charges are for visits to general practitioners or to hospitals? Are they for operations? Are they for medical drugs that are currently free? What proportion of people would be expected to pay the charges? What services would the rest obtain? Who would be exempted? What would happen to the terminally ill, cancer patients and old age pensioners?
	If Conservative Members call for a debate in the House about the future funding of public services, they have a duty to tell us—[Hon. Members: "No."] Oh yes they do. Every Conservative Member stood on a manifesto—[Interruption.] They cannot get away from it. They stood on a manifesto that stated that there would be a comprehensive health service that was free to all at the point of need. Yet the deputy Treasury spokesman says not that there might be charges, but that there will be charges.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Gordon Brown: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) if he tells me how he will justify a policy of charging to his constituents.

Paul Goodman: Will the Chancellor confirm or deny that the Secretary of State for Health received only 24 hours notice of his plans last week? [Interruption.]

Gordon Brown: Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. An intervention has been made and the Chancellor is responding to it.

Gordon Brown: The Secretary of State for Health received full notice of our decisions, but the hon. Member for Wycombe refused to say whether he supports charges.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Gordon Brown: I shall give way in a minute. First, let us consider another piece of evidence. Nicky Campbell asked the Leader of the Opposition in an interview on Radio 5 on 22 June whether his health plans would involve people paying for treatment. The right hon. Gentleman replied: "Absolutely." Conservative Members cannot answer questions about their manifesto because they are planning charges for the health service.

Chris Grayling: Will the Chancellor confirm or deny plans to raise the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions to pay for health care?

Gordon Brown: We gave our promises on taxation at the general election.

Matthew Taylor: Will the Chancellor clarify early in the debate whether the Prime Minister was right to say that the point of the Chancellor's statement last week was to ensure the fulfilment of the Prime Minister's commitment 18 months ago to raise spending on the health service to the EU average by 2005? Was the Prime Minister right?

Gordon Brown: Of course that is our policy. That is exactly what the Prime Minister said on Wednesday. The day before, I said that we wanted a substantially increased proportion of the national income to be used for health expenditure.
	I shall explain what has happened in the past few years. As a proportion of national income, health expenditure increased from 6.9 per cent. That would not have happened under the Tories when the average was 6.2 per cent. Under us, it increased to 7.2 per cent. The Tories would not have done that. It will go up to 7.4 per cent., 7.6 per cent. and 7.8 per cent. Again, the Tories would not have done that. The Government are keeping their promises.
	I want to explain to Conservative Members why charging is wrong. The debate must focus on that central point.

Roger Gale: rose—

Gordon Brown: I shall give way in a minute. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If hon. Members want to make a contribution, that is no way to go about it.

Gordon Brown: The shadow Chancellor refuses to tell us whether he supports charges. However, I have a copy of his election literature. He issued a leaflet, in which one item is entitled "The Future of the NHS". What did he say in it? I shall give way so that he can tell us.

Michael Howard: The Chancellor is right; we had no such proposals at the last election. However, he has overlooked the fact that his party won the election. The Labour party is responsible for funding the NHS for the next four years. When will he grow up, accept his responsibilities, do what he promised at the outset of his speech and answer the questions that I asked him?

Gordon Brown: I know why the shadow Chancellor is rattled. He cannot tell us whether he will support charges for the NHS in this Parliament. What did he say at the general election? The leaflet states:
	"But there will be no charges".
	It goes on:
	"Do not believe the lies which are being spread by our opponents.
	Conservatives will retain a free and comprehensive national health service".
	He was right then and he is wrong now because a free NHS is the right policy for this country on the ground of equity. It means that everybody, irrespective of income, gets the health care that they need. It is right because comprehensive care means that people are not discouraged from using health care services through lack of income. It is right because it is an efficient system, which avoids the form filling and bureaucracy that a charging system would entail.

Roger Gale: rose—

Michael Jack: rose—

Gordon Brown: I shall give way in a minute. Conservative Members are making a historic decision this evening. They tell us that they are no longer prepared to commit themselves to the principle on which the NHS was built 50 years ago. At the general election, they said that they supported a comprehensive service that was free at the point of need. They no longer support it and they will have to answer to their constituents for that.

Roger Gale: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Gordon Brown: In a minute.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I call the House to order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is on his feet.

Roger Gale: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You quite rightly admonished me earlier for making an intervention from a sedentary position. You said that I had to ask the Chancellor whether he would give way. Since then, I have tried to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to give way. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is up to a Minister whether he or she decides to give way.

Gordon Brown: I want to make some progress.

Michael Howard: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Gordon Brown: I will give way in a minute, but I want to develop my argument because the issue is not simply that the Conservatives are prepared to contemplate charges for the first time in their history. It is also that they are prepared to abandon a tax revenue-based national health service. The reason that the Flight memorandum says all that is because of the commitments that the shadow Chancellor has made in another direction. He will have to think before he gets to his feet again, because of the speeches that he has been making from 1997 onwards. Those speeches explain why the Conservatives have to cut public expenditure.

Michael Jack: Will the Chancellor give way?

Gordon Brown: I will give way in a minute.

John Bercow: This is a very long minute.

Gordon Brown: The Conservative party does not like—[Interruption.] I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Michael Jack: The Chancellor has made some comments about charging. Will he explain why he condones and supports the charging of elderly people for many aspects of their social care?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we are operating rules that have been operated by both political parties over the last few years. He also knows that we are now talking about charges for a visit to a GP. [Interruption.] The Conservatives do not like hearing about this, but it is about time they faced up to it.

Michael Howard: Will the Chancellor give way?

Gordon Brown: I will give way in a minute. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Can we please let this debate proceed with some degree of decorum?

Gordon Brown: The health spokesman of the Conservative party has said:
	"I think my commitment to the NHS is clear. We have said we will maintain a fully comprehensive NHS, free at the point of use, in our manifesto. I have said it since I can ever remember being in politics, and that's something that will go on."
	How can the shadow Chancellor say that once the election is over, the promises will go?

Michael Howard: The Chancellor was waxing eloquent a few moments ago about how effective, efficient and equitable the national health service is. Is he proud of a service that tells one of my constituents, who is 83 years old and suffering from Parkinson's disease, that he has to wait 83 weeks to see a consultant neurologist? Is that the national health service of which the Chancellor is proud?

Gordon Brown: I am proud of the fact that the national health service does not charge people for treatment in the way that the right hon. Gentleman wants to do. Under his proposals, the constituent whom he mentioned would have to pay. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This debate will proceed, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other right hon. and hon. Members will be heard, but not all together.

Gordon Brown: Let us be clear why the Conservatives cannot commit themselves to a health service that is free at the point of use, and why they have abandoned that principle. The reason is that the shadow Chancellor has been going round the country for years making promises about cutting public expenditure.

Crispin Blunt: Will the Chancellor give way?

Gordon Brown: I have given way quite enough.
	The shadow Chancellor has said that we are spending too much money. His whole point is that we are spending too much money—this year, next year, last year. In other words, he is saying that spending should be cut. That is the shadow Chancellor's position. Why? I shall read out this quote, so that people can understand where the Conservative party is coming from:
	"With trend economic growth of 2 plus per cent. and real spending growth held to 1 per cent., we would have cut the Government's share of spending to below 37 per cent. I believe we might have done even better."
	That was the shadow Chancellor's programme for the last Parliament, which would have meant public spending cuts of £10 billion a year. In 1997, in a speech that now influences the whole thinking of the shadow Cabinet, he said:
	"Our aim should be to reduce the proportion of national output taken by the state towards 35 per cent."
	[Interruption.] Perhaps the shadow Chancellor denies that he made that speech.

Michael Howard: indicated dissent

Gordon Brown: No, he does not. In the speech, he went on to say:
	"I believe that 35 per cent. is a realistic and attainable goal."
	What would 35 per cent. mean? It would mean £50 billion of cuts in public expenditure. It makes the Letwin manifesto at the last election look moderate. It is the most extreme proposal for cuts in public expenditure that could be made. What would it mean for the future of the national health service in this country? Could the income of the national health service rise by 6 per cent. a year in real terms under that policy? The answer is no.

Michael Howard: Will the Chancellor give way?

Gordon Brown: I will give way in a minute.
	Could the national health service get £5 billion extra a year under the shadow Chancellor's proposals? The answer is no. Why cannot he now commit himself to a free national health service? Because he plans to cut public spending to 35 per cent. of national income—a £50 billion cut—and I say to hon. Members that this is the trouble with having a shadow Chancellor who has a record.

Michael Howard: Instead of taking us on this trip down memory lane, will the Chancellor now keep the promise that he made at the beginning of his speech and answer in detail all the questions that I put to him in my speech?

Gordon Brown: The problem is that all the questions are now for the Conservatives.

Paul Goodman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Chancellor to say at the beginning of his speech that he will answer the points made, then, halfway through the speech, to refuse to do so? [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Gordon Brown: I must explain that I have had to follow this line of questioning because the Conservatives seem to have concluded that the reason they lost the last election was that they were not extreme enough. They seem to have concluded that, if only they had told the electorate that they would abolish the national health service, people would have rushed towards them. They now seem to be planning a pledge card for the next election, which would offer five pledges: charges for GP visits; charges for hospital visits; charges for operations; cutting national health service expenditure; and ending the national health service entirely. That is what the Flight memorandum says. That is what the shadow Chancellor means when he refuses to rule out charges. It is also what he means by his proposal to cut public expenditure to 35 per cent.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Gordon Brown: I will give way once more, then I will finish my remarks.

Steve Webb: Will the Chancellor clarify the Treasury's position on hypothecation? I understand that the Treasury is concerned that revenues might rise or fall with the cycle. I wonder whether the Chancellor has had the opportunity to see my article, published this morning in the Institute for Public Policy Research journal, which shows how that problem could be dealt with. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have certainly not seen the hon. Gentleman's article—neither can I hear his comments.

Gordon Brown: I have been too busy reading the shadow Chancellor's speeches to read the hon. Gentleman's article, but I assure him that I will do so.
	Opposition Members know perfectly well that we have embarked on a programme of NHS reform. Seventy-five per cent. of the money is going back to primary care trusts; we are renegotiating contracts for doctors, including consultants, and nurses; and there is a programme of reform at the centre, where we are devolving power to the localities.

Michael Howard: Centralising.

Gordon Brown: Ah! The shadow Chancellor now draws me into a discussion of his view of the national health service as a Stalinist creation. I believe that a Conservative party that holds that it can describe the health service not just as centralist but as a Stalinist creation is making a very big mistake. The shadow Chancellor is saying that when the service was created it was wrong, at that time. That is what he is saying: it is a Stalinist creation, and therefore it was wrong even in 1948. The Conservative party is now abandoning a consensus that was accepted by Sir Winston Churchill, Harold Macmillan and Lady Thatcher, all of whom believed that we should not abandon the national health service.
	The debate on hypothecation will continue, but I think all parties—and the shadow Chancellor, representing the last Government, took the same view—would not want to make the funding of the NHS dependent on, or hostage to, the economic cycle. They would not want one tax relating to changes in behaviour to make the service a victim of a situation that it should not have to live through, when what we want is sustainable, long-term funding.
	That is what tonight's debate is about. We believe in a national health service that is free at the point of use; it is clear that the Opposition now do not. We believe in a tax-funded national health service; it is clear that the Opposition want a system of private health insurance. We believe in more investment in the NHS; the Opposition want to cut investment.
	I say this of the shadow Chancellor: he got every major decision wrong in his past career in politics. [Interruption.] Oh, yes. He was the brains behind the poll tax. He defended the Conservative Government when the interest rate was 15 per cent. He is the man who said that a minimum wage would cost a million jobs—and it created a million jobs. He is the Minister who said that we were the worst-placed country to deal with the economic difficulties around the world—and people know that this year we have been the best-placed country to do that.
	The shadow Chancellor has also got it wrong on the national health service. He will live to regret a debate in which he has refused to rule out charging in the service. Labour wants to build the national health service; it is clear that the Conservatives want to destroy it. Tonight, Members should vote to build it.

Keith Simpson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will we, at some stage during the debate, hear a speech from the Chancellor about the Government's policy?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Matthew Taylor: At this point, we should remember where the debate started back in 1997, when the Conservatives, after years of under- investment, left the NHS in truly dire straits. We now know why: it was because they believe the NHS to be a Stalinist institution.
	Do the Conservatives not realise that Stalin killed millions of people, whereas the NHS and its staff strain every sinew to save millions of people? NHS staff—doctors, nurses, ancillaries and the rest—would be appalled to hear first the so-called leader of that party and then the shadow Chancellor argue that theirs is a Stalinist organisation. How far from the truth could that be? How can people now believe that the Conservative party is committed to maintaining a national health service that is free at the point of use, and serving every person in the country?
	Back in 1997, Labour argued that it had 24 hours to save the NHS. That may be the case at the next election: it was made plain this evening that a Conservative Government, if elected, would abolish the national health service as we know it. Whatever else Labour may have done, however, it failed to save the NHS in 24 hours, or even in a number of years. Its commitment to stick to Conservative spending plans, without even the annual review that the Conservatives would have delivered, led to a fall in the proportion of national wealth spent on the NHS during its early years in office. As a result, doctors and nurses were not trained—which resulted in the Government's current problem.
	The error was repeated at the last general election, which the Government fought on the basis that the NHS had effectively been rescued, and that their spending plans would deliver the goods. They have had to admit that they got that wrong too. The Liberal Democrats argued throughout that it would only be possible to find the investment needed for the NHS if the Government faced head-on the raising of taxes that was necessary to increase the proportion of gross domestic product spent on the service.
	Let us not give the Government too much credit for their change of mind. We welcome it, but we should recall the blistering attacks launched by both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor on any Members—including those on their own side—who argued that, in the long run, the NHS could secure the investment it needed only if the Government were prepared to invest a higher proportion of GDP, and that that meant facing the tax issue, if the economy was to be managed properly.
	In July 1997, just after the general election, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats asked:
	"If I were to say to the Prime Minister that one of his Health Ministers has now announced that his Government will spend £350 million less next winter on the health service than the outgoing Conservative Government would have done, would he be surprised?"
	All that the Prime Minister could say was:
	"As I have already said, we have inherited the spending plans of the previous Administration."—[Official Report, 30 July 1997; Vol.299, c. 334.]
	Any Government inherit the spending plans of their predecessors, but not many choose to implement them. That mistake has haunted the present Government to this day.

Chris Grayling: Is it the policy of the hon. Gentleman's party to support the principle of raising health care spending by the state to the European average? If so, does his party support the substantial tax increases that would, it appears, be required?

Matthew Taylor: The hon. Gentleman may have been diverted from this during the election campaign, but our manifesto made both those promises.
	More recently, the Government proved still to be making the same mistakes. [Interruption.] I gave the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) as clear an answer as anyone could give: my answers were yes and yes. I know that Conservative Members find it difficult to give any answers themselves, but they should at least understand when someone else is giving an answer—although I suppose that lack of use of the "yes" bit of the brain, or come to that the "no" bit, and limiting oneself to the "don't know" bit, makes it hard to give or indeed receive a straight answer.

Chris Grayling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again, very briefly?

Matthew Taylor: I will in due course.
	The error to which I referred, however, did not occur just in 1997; it rolled forward. In April 2000 the present leader of the Liberal Democrats, at a time when the Chancellor was delivering a cut in income tax, challenged the Prime Minister thus:
	"Does it remain the Prime Minister's intention over five years to get health spending in the country up to European levels? If so, does he believe that a tax cut in April will assist that process?"—[Official Report, 1 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 418.]
	We now know what the answer was. No, it would not assist the process. The Chancellor, having cut income tax in April 2000, now tells us that we may need to face tax increases.
	Things did not change in the election of June 2001 either. Labour consistently denied that more money needed to be raised through tax; indeed, the Chancellor could not have been more explicit. That raises a serious question about the honesty of the Government and their approach to the wider electorate. It seems hard to believe that things have changed so dramatically between the election in June and the pre-Budget statement at the end of November. The Chancellor says that it is not due to the change in economic circumstances, so what exactly is it due to? The wheels have come off new Labour's bandwagon and they are all going in entirely different directions.
	On spending, 18 months ago, the Prime Minister jumped the Chancellor on the "Frost" programme. The Prime Minister promised:
	"We will bring it up to the European average",
	but immediately the Chancellor worked to obfuscate: it was aims, targets, ambitions, never a commitment. Again, in the pre-Budget report last week, he hinted, flirted but remained no more than a tease.
	Again, it took the Prime Minister to let the cat out of the bag. Last Wednesday, at Prime Minister's questions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, asked the key question, which incidentally the leader of the Conservative party failed even to spot. My right hon. Friend said:
	"The Prime Minister committed himself to raising health expenditure in our country to the European Union average by 2005. Is that still the policy of his Government?"
	The Prime Minister said:
	"Of course it is. That is precisely the point of the Chancellor's announcement yesterday."—[Official Report, 28 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 964.]
	Ever since, the policy of the Government has been in total confusion. It seemed for five days that that had been precisely not the point of the Chancellor's speech. He rushed to The Sun, which said:
	"the Chancellor refused to say if the promise applied to EU spending at the time of Mr. Blair's promise—or to the levels which will be reached in 2005."
	Perhaps the Chancellor can clarify that.
	By Sunday, the Prime Minister had buckled under the force of his Chancellor's will. The Independent on Sunday reported:
	"'I am not deciding spending levels now'"—
	not quite what we thought he said at Prime Minister's questions—
	"Mr. Blair said, making it clear he was talking generally . . . his commitment to match European health spending—originally made 18 months ago and repeated in the Commons on Wednesday—was only a 'broad' aim."
	At today's lobby briefing, the Prime Minister's spokesman went out of his way to say that the Prime Minister had said that it was only the Government's aim. I quote from the e-mail briefing that we received:
	"We are not going to slap on a particular figure when we have a CSR review and we have the Wanless report."
	He said that those were important processes that had to be completed before the Government could tie themselves to a figure. He added:
	"It is our aim to bring our spending up to the European average by 2005/6."
	Now we know how to get a statement from the Chancellor. When it becomes the Prime Minister's aim, when he backtracks, the Chancellor comes charging forward and says, "No, this is our committed policy." If only the Prime Minister 18 months ago had not committed himself to it on the Frost programme; we would probably have heard it previously from the Chancellor.

Chris Ruane: The hon. Gentleman criticises, carps and calls for honesty from the Chancellor. The Liberal Democrats call for an increase in spending on education, health, transport, the environment and small businesses. Can we have a little honesty from them? By how much would they put up taxes to achieve their aims?

Matthew Taylor: It was all set out in our manifesto. Incidentally, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the BBC economics department and others all concluded that our figures added up. Clearly, the Chancellor's did not, because he has had to do a complete U-turn in only six or seven months following the general election.
	That said, the House may now have the vague impression that the Government's position is clear. The Chancellor has said, "Yes, it is our commitment to meet the EU target by 2005", and that is welcome news. I think that it means some increase in spending for the NHS. Unfortunately, the Treasury is redefining the EU target. Perhaps that is why the Chancellor now feels able to make that commitment.
	The King's Fund and the Institute for Fiscal Studies both believe that the position is clear: there is a substantial gap, even on the Government's present spending plans. The size of the countries should be taken into account. Luxembourg, one of the smallest, does not spend so much, but then perhaps it is not overly reliant on the immediate health services in Luxembourg itself. If the reasonable view is taken that the larger countries count for more, on an independent basis, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the King's Fund and others all conclude that the Government will fall substantially short of their target.
	The Government now use an average that includes the United Kingdom. That helps to bring the figure down as UK spending is low in any case, but the humdinger is that every country across the European Union faces similar pressures to those that have caused so much difficulty in the NHS: the increase in demand, the development of technology, the need to pay doctors and nurses a reasonable wage. Across the world, other workers are benefiting from growth in the economies through the wage packet. Doctors and nurses obviously need the same, but the Chancellor is off the hook in one bound because the target is to meet not the EU average, but the EU average as it used to be. It is not to bring us up to the European Union, but to allow us permanently to fall ever further behind.

Chris Grayling: May I seek the hon. Gentleman's clarification on an important point? He said that his party was committed to raising health care spending in this country to the European average; he gave the answer, "Yes" a moment ago. Did his proposals at the general election raise sufficient money to do that? If not, where will the money come from to fill the gap? What extra taxation does his party want to raise to meet that target?

Matthew Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is drawing me down the line of an alternative Budget presentation with the full details. We published such a Budget at the last general election. I shall not deliver it now but, if he is interested, we will continue to deliver our alternative spending plans at each and every Budget, which is more than his Front-Bench team has ever done. We have a clear commitment from the shadow Chancellor not to do it in March.

David Laws: What conclusions does my hon. Friend draw about the Conservative party's commitment to the NHS, given its statements in the debate today and given the fact that barely 10 Conservative Members have bothered to turn up for their own Opposition day debate?

Matthew Taylor: The shadow Chancellor spelt it out: the NHS is a Stalinist institution. We do not need to ask ourselves; he is more than happy to tell us. He believes that those who can afford to should pay towards their health care. That is the difference that he, together with his leader, has brought to the Front-Bench team. Even the old policy that they defend the NHS in theory if not in practice is now abandoned. Theory and practice have come together: they do not believe in the NHS.

Jenny Tonge: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Matthew Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give me a moment, because I want to turn to other areas where the Government are unravelling?
	Who runs the NHS? Early last year, cracks were already appearing between the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Health. On 27 November 2000, just about a year ago, BBC Online said:
	"Early press reports suggested that Health Secretary Alan Milburn had some sympathy with the proposals"
	for a hypothecated health tax.
	On 27 November, The Times said:
	Alan Milburn, the Health Secretary, last night signalled that he would risk the wrath of the Treasury by backing proposals to ring-fence half of all income tax revenue for the NHS."
	On 28 November, The Guardian said:
	"Earmarked taxes are seen by some, including Home office minister Charles Clarke, as the best means of improving the popularity of direct taxes with voters. However, the Treasury dismissed suggestions that as much as half of all income tax should be earmarked for an NHS tax."
	We do not need to read into those reports a division between the Treasury and the Secretary of State for Health and his friends, we can see the result of that division—the Secretary of State is no longer in charge of the NHS and health decisions.
	The Chancellor commissioned the Wanless report, effectively taking over direct control of long-term NHS policy making. Now that that report has been published, we have learned—first in The Mail on Sunday, on 12 December, and now essentially directly from the Chancellor's own lips—that:
	"Referring to Cabinet splits, Mr. Clarke launched into a bizarre defence of his close ally Alan Milburn. 'Obviously it's unacceptable to say 'Alan Milburn is a bastard'' he said."
	I do not know who is supposed to have said that he is, but presumably that person is not far from us now, on the other side of the House. Meanwhile, another Minister said:
	"Everyone agrees Gordon is a brilliant Chancellor but his treatment of the rest of us is unacceptable".
	So who is in charge of the NHS? Today we have received an answer: the Chancellor is in charge of it. In reply to a report in The Mail on Sunday that sources close to the Prime Minister said that he was completely taken by surprise when the Chancellor told hon. Members that he had ruled out any major change in the way in which the NHS is run or funded, and that the Secretary of State for Health had been told only at the weekend of the outcome of the Wanless report, all the Chancellor could say was that the Secretary of State had received full notice. Is that all that the Prime Minister has received too?
	It is not only the Prime Minister and other Cabinet members who are subject to the will of the Chancellor. There is a peculiarity in what the Chancellor had to say about Mr. Wanless—whose name came up surprisingly often in the Chancellor's statement, when it was, "Mr. Wanless this", and "Mr. Wanless that". I guess that the Chancellor might be thinking of putting Mr. Wanless in charge of the NHS. From his point of view, it would be better to have him in charge than the Secretary of State for Health, and it would certainly be better than having the Prime Minister in charge. However, the Chancellor and Mr. Wanless seem to have had a falling out.
	Last week, the Chancellor told us:
	"having examined whether a publicly funded NHS is itself a pressure on costs and thus whether it is sustainable, Mr. Wanless's view is that the principle of an NHS publicly funded through taxation, available on the basis of clinical need and not on ability to pay, remains both the fairest and most efficient system for this country."—[Official Report, 27 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 838.]
	That may be the Chancellor's view, and it is my view, but Mr. Wanless has suggested that it may not be his view. He said:
	"I have not sought to bury anything for good. It would be quite presumptuous and premature to do that."
	So who is in charge? Is it Wanless, the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Health? No, once again, it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
	The Observer had the most bizarre story of all. Presumably briefed by Labour party insiders—it is quite a friend of the Government, although not always a secure one, and tends to have knowledge of what is said in the inner circles—it said:
	"Planning for last week's remarkable announcement on tax—which has set many Cabinet members against one another—has been two years in the making, meticulously pored over, refined and planned during hours and hours of meetings at the Treasury and Downing Street."
	They have to be kidding. If the outcome of two years of meticulous planning and co-ordination between No. 10 Downing street and the Treasury is the total mess that we have seen in the past five days, God help us if they ever stop planning.

Roger Casale: Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the announcement of a great national debate on the future of public expenditure and public services? If so, will Liberal Democrat Members rise to the challenge of that debate, or will they continue as he has started by talking about the personalities in various Departments? Does he agree that the reason why we are able to have a debate on the future of public expenditure at all, not to mention the public expenditure increases that the Government are delivering, is that the Government have shown competent stewardship of the economy and that, despite a world recession, growth next year is forecast to remain the same as it has been this year?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was almost a speech.

Matthew Taylor: Liberal Democrat Members do indeed welcome such a debate; after all, we pioneered it and for several years suffered a lot of abuse from the Chancellor and the Prime Minister for daring to suggest that what the Chancellor now says is right might have been right even then, just a few years ago.

Jenny Tonge: Does my hon. Friend agree that the standard of debate that we have had so far today, and the shadow Chancellor's remarks on the Stalinist creation called the national health service, are an insult to anyone who has ever worked in the health service?

Matthew Taylor: I am amazed by Conservative Members. If there is an issue that will crucify them at the ballot box, it is their decision not to support the NHS; not to support the principles of care free at the point of delivery for all who need it; their description of those who work in the NHS—doctors and nurses—as working for a Stalinist organisation; and the extremism that has been let in. The extremism that has crept in explains why so many able Conservatives refuse to serve in this appalling Front-Bench team that suggests that it might yet form an alternative Government.
	The shadow Home Secretary had it right: not only have the Conservatives not yet won people's trust but they have a very long way to go. At present, all they are doing is going down, down, down. That is what they will find when they go to the ballot box. However, the Government cannot hide behind the Opposition's weakness. We will be there, testing and pushing them, and leading the debate, as we have done since 1997. By the Chancellor's own admission, he got it wrong, we got it right.

Derek Twigg: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on an excellent speech. It is interesting to examine how what the Conservatives say about health care and privatisation changes. The shadow Health Secretary has said some interesting things. In The Times on 6 August, he said that his party had to have the courage to
	"top up state spending with private income of one form or another."
	He said that his party's
	"failure of nerve in the last Parliament"
	meant they had not come up with a "credible alternative narrative" for health care—whatever that means.
	Why did the Tories have a failure of nerve? Was it because they were not prepared to be honest about their plans to privatise the health service?

Chris Ruane: Trojan horse.

Derek Twigg: Indeed.
	It is also reported that the shadow Health Secretary
	"believes the party must consider proposals that would allow patients to buy themselves better healthcare".
	What does that mean? I have no idea. He said that the funding gap comes from Britain's inability to
	"top up state spending with private income."
	He also said that the party should consider
	"employer contribution schemes, tax breaks on private health insurance, or a state-supported savings system."
	It would be interesting to know where the Conservatives expect the money to come from.
	The shadow Chancellor talks about the Stalinist NHS. Does not that undermine any claim that the Conservatives make that they support the NHS? They did not believe in it in the first place. They did not want it. They would like it to disappear, to be replaced by a privatised health service. They are not prepared to have that debate, though, so they hide behind some interesting words.
	Does the Conservative party favour the system in the USA, where 44 million people have none or no adequate health care insurance and everyone else finds that their premiums are rocketing? Even in some European countries, France for instance, people are put off going to see their doctor because of the rising charges.
	It is interesting to hear what the Conservatives say about expanding demand for private health insurance. Where are the resources to come from to meet that increased private sector demand? Where are the nurses and doctors to come from to meet this so-called expansion of private health care? Presumably, they will come from the NHS, which is currently increasing the number of doctors and nurses—and we certainly need more.
	The Conservatives want tax incentives for people to buy private health care. Where will they find the money to fund that? Their proposals make it clear what they want in the long run: a privatised or at the very least part-privatised health service. Where does that leave areas such as Halton, the 18th most deprived borough in England and Wales, with the country's highest lung cancer rate, the most renal problems and one of the highest levels of coronary heart disease?
	People in Halton rely on the NHS and not many can afford private health care. They would be on the bottom rung, with a second-hand privatised system. They would be ignored by the Tories and would not be looked after as they have been by the NHS and Labour Governments.

Chris Grayling: Like the hon. Gentleman, I see the frustration of my constituents at the current state of health care. Does he agree that we should look to the rest of Europe, which has much better health care with a much more diverse system of funding? It works better, so should not we learn some lessons from that?

Derek Twigg: I am fascinated by the Conservatives sudden conversion to Europe. The difference between us is simple: I believe in a publicly funded health service. With the investment that we will make, we will see further and bigger improvements over the next few years and we will provide the service that his and my constituents want to see. Privatisation would mean that places such as Halton would be at the bottom of the heap in terms of health care. I am not prepared to let that happen.

David Taylor: My hon. Friend is rightly coruscating about the overt privatisation plans of the present Opposition. Does he agree that one blemish on our health record so far is our too ready acceptance of the private finance initiative—part of the leaden legacy left to us by the Conservatives—which has been prohibitive in cost, flawed in concept and intolerable in consequence for the taxpayers, patients and NHS staff in the UK?

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend has strong views on that point, but many new hospitals have been built under that initiative that otherwise would not have been built. It is not perfect and it has flaws, but if the Tories ever got back in it would be a minor issue, because we would then see the wholesale privatisation of the health service.

David Taylor: It has more flaws than Canary wharf.

Derek Twigg: The Tory party certainly has more flaws than Canary wharf.
	The Conservative party manifesto said that the party was
	"committed to a comprehensive NHS free to all its users."
	I did not hear that from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) tonight. In fact, I heard the opposite. The manifesto continued:
	"There is no question of anyone being forced to take out private insurance."
	Again, I heard no reassuring noises on that point. The manifesto, in the section entitled "staying healthy", said:
	"Common sense means ending political interference in medical judgments and giving choice to patients".
	The first bullet point then states:
	"Increase funding for NHS".
	We heard no figures for that today, because the Tories do not really mean that they would do that. They mean privatisation.
	If the Tories ever got back into power, I would really worry about how people in some of the poorest constituencies would be treated by the health service. What would happen to the handicapped, the mentally ill and those with long-term debilitating illnesses? Unfortunately, that applies to many thousands of people in my constituency, but they would not be looked after under the Conservatives' proposals for privatisation. I could not let my constituents—the people I grew up with—be treated so abominably. Under the American system, 44 million people have no or inadequate health insurance. That is the sort of system that the Tories would introduce in this country.
	What should be happening because of the improvements in health care? The Tories talk about a Stalinist system and centralisation. However, over the next three years 75 per cent. of NHS funding will be administered through primary care trusts. In areas such as mine that will mean more local accountability for decisions about how money is spent. In Widnes, which forms a large part of my constituency, after 10 years of trying—because primary care services have been poor for more than 50 years—we will get a primary care resource centre, which will mean more doctors, nurses and specialist staff to treat people on their doorstep in their local community. That is about to come to fruition, under a Labour Government. The Tories did nothing about the problem when they were in power.
	The motion covers other public services than health. Significant improvements have been made in public services in Halton over the past four years. For example, standards have risen in schools; class sizes have been reduced; and more and more teachers are in post. The number of nursery places has increased. More funding has gone to schools than for many, many years. Two weeks ago, when I visited a school in my constituency, a senior head teacher told me that there had never been so much money going into schools.
	That would never have happened under the Tories, because they would have made sure that we went back to the old way, with grammar schools in a two-tier system. Under the Labour Government, funding has gone into schools—specifically in working-class areas where that investment is needed.
	I also want to talk about the transport system in my constituency. We have wanted a second Mersey crossing for many, many years, but we got no help from the previous Government. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) and I explained to the then Transport Minister that, to get that project under way, we needed money for a feasibility study. We received £600,000 from the Minister towards that study. That help from the Government is for an authority which has to maintain the largest single-span structure of any local authority in the country.
	Previously, we unfortunately had a Tory county council in Cheshire. Under that council and the Tory Government, hardly any money was put towards maintaining one of the most important road bridges and its approaches from the M56, M62 and M57: barely £600,000 was allocated in 1997. What is the council receiving this year? It is receiving £6 million this year alone. The amount will increase next year to ensure that the bridge can be maintained in proper order so that it is not a danger and so that traffic can flow more freely. That is the sort of commitment that we are seeing in my constituency.
	Furthermore, for the first time, there have been real improvements in bus services, in local transport and in providing access. For disabled people and those with long-term debilitating diseases, there will be investment in community transport schemes. That, too, has happened under a Labour Government; it was not funded under a Tory Government. I can point to tangible examples in my constituency that show not only the Labour Government's commitment to funding public services, but that the way that they have funded those services is bringing about real improvements.
	When we consider Tory policy, we recall that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) did a runner during the general election. He disappeared after talking about the cuts and the black hole in Tory funding of public services. We know about that £16 billion black hole.

Peter Duncan: Have waiting lists in the hon. Gentleman's constituency increased or decreased since 1997?

Derek Twigg: They have gone down in the North Cheshire health authority, which covers my constituency. The authority has met its target. The funding increase to the health authority since 1997 was about 70 per cent. Furthermore, to deal with the health inequalities in my constituency, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health gave the health authority £1.2 million towards health improvement. As part of that, an important health study is taking place in my constituency in order to determine the factors that have led to the poor health that has existed for many generations. That shows the Labour Government making a difference to people's lives. That is happening in my constituency.
	The Tories cannot make their figures stand up. Despite the sweet words we have heard this evening and the evasive answers to questions about whether they will privatise the health service—we all know that is what they want to do—they cannot make the figures add up. I repeat that if people vote Tory at the next election, we shall see a privatised health service—as the Liberal Democrats and my hon. Friends have pointed out. That is the dividing line between us.
	The debate is about having a publicly funded NHS with a planned stream of funding over the next few years or the alternative of going down the Tories privatised NHS where we will not know what the funding will be from one year to the next.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman talks helpfully about the importance of planning in health service expenditure, so he will of course recognise the need for specificity. What assessment has he made of the prognosis of the King's Fund for the average European Union level of public expenditure on health by the end of this Parliament? Does he intend that it be equalled by the United Kingdom?

Derek Twigg: Let me put it simply: on the ground, in my constituency, when I talk to GPs, NHS staff and others, they recognise the Government's commitment to ensuring the success of the health service and to extra funding. There may be disagreements as to how the money is spent, but the increased expenditure under the Labour Government will far outweigh what we saw under the Conservatives. The choice is between a privatised health service or a properly publicly funded NHS.

George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg). I hope to reply to some of the thoughtful questions that he posed about how we can improve the service for some of his constituents. However, he made a mistake towards the end of his speech by polarising the issue between a wholly privatised system and carrying on with the current system, and I hope to say a few words about that in a moment.
	The debate was opened with a quality speech from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who posed four questions in his normal consensual way. It was sad that, after speaking for 30 minutes, the Chancellor did not give us any answers. Indeed, he seemed to be growing increasingly agitated as time wore on. I hope that the Chief Secretary will answer those four question when he replies to the debate.
	Last Tuesday, the Chancellor announced the beginning of a debate on health, and at Prime Minister's questions the next day the Prime Minister also referred to a debate on health. I welcome that and think it important that the Government do not foreclose all the options before the debate has got under way. I hope that they will not impugn the motives of those who believe that the time has come for some lateral thinking about how we fund the health service. I am not sure that the Chancellor understands how difficult the position is for the NHS in many constituencies.
	I want to make two brief points—one about funding and the other about social services, a close partner of the NHS. On the first, the key question that needs to be addressed is how do we adhere to the principles behind the NHS—free at the point of use and available on the basis of need—while enabling the country and the NHS to perform much better than it does at the moment? I want to develop briefly the analogy with pensions and find out whether the approach that has successfully been adopted can be applied to health.
	When the welfare state was founded just after the second world war, broadly the same approach was adopted to pensions and health. On pensions, there was to be a compulsory contributory scheme, leading to a state retirement pension, which was designed to address poverty in old age and reduce dependence on means-tested benefits. It was not to be a funded scheme, but a pay-as-you-go scheme, with today's contributions paying today's pensions. The NHS was born with the same overall philosophy—a state scheme aimed at embracing everyone, designed to address ill health and paid for out of compulsory taxation.
	With pensions, the Beveridge vision was never achieved. There was increasing reliance on supplementary benefit, income support and pensioner credits to tackle poverty and no Government were ever able to get the state retirement pension up to the level that would take people out of poverty. Over time, the emphasis began to switch to private provision, based on the workplace. Although the Opposition can claim much of the credit for what I call that mixed economy in pensions, a key player was actually Barbara Castle—as good a socialist as one could come across—whose pension Bill in the mid-1970s contained the architecture for the scheme that we now have.
	Over the years, more emphasis has been placed, by Governments of both parties, on good employers having in place a quality pension scheme that complements, reinforces and works alongside the state retirement scheme—an ideal third way. No one has ever asserted that that is socially divisive. The trade unions support good private pension schemes, and this country's pensions are now on a sound financial footing. We lead Europe in funded pensions, given that most other European Union countries have schemes that will need an increase in taxation or contributions.
	The question I pose this evening is whether a comparable model might not be looked at for health, against the background of the pressures on funding and delivery that confront the NHS as a monopoly provider. Should not one encourage employment-based insurance schemes to complement the NHS? They could be called, "NHS at work" if it helps Labour Members. It is indeed the case that many firms have private health insurance schemes, but, typically, they cover only senior employees. I believe we should move towards a system whereby not just all the employees within firms are covered, but their families as well. Such an approach would be welcomed by those who represent the work force. It would be in the interests of employers in improving the quality of care that employees and their families receive. I believe that the NHS should welcome it, as the growth of an independent sector of medicine would relieve it of much of the pressure that confronts it at the moment. I think that the Government should welcome it, as it would increase the percentage spend up to European levels. I do not think that anyone could argue that such an approach was socially divisive; rather, it would be an extension of good employment practice, as has already happened with decent pensions.
	There are, of course, cost issues for employers, although the bulk purchase of health cover can bring premiums right down to three rather than four figures a year. It could be phased in and the cost could be reduced by cutting employers national insurance contributions. I hope that the debate launched by the Government will permit us to explore that option.
	My second point is about joined-up government. The debate launched by the Government is about the NHS, but we should not forget its partner, social services. Right hon. and hon. Members may have seen the letter in The Times today by Councillor Sir Jeremy Beecham, chairman of the Local Government Association, in which he says:
	"The Chancellor's announcement of £1 billion extra to be invested in the NHS, on top of the current record levels of increase, will be widely welcomed. By an ironical coincidence £1 billion is the sum which local council social services departments are spending on social care over and above the Government's Standard Spending Assessment for social services.
	The work of social services departments with the elderly and with children complements mainline government programmes in health, education and in combating child poverty. It is currently under-funded and many councils face the prospect of cuts in this key area of social provision."
	Certainly, many of the problems confronting the NHS in my constituency in Hampshire are due in no small part to the underfunding of social services. There is no point in providing more money for the NHS if it cannot be spent, because the revenue support grant is squeezing local authorities and social services. Let me say in passing, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) pointed out, that social services are extensively charged for.
	Nine per cent. of all acute beds in the south-east—1,370 beds, or three district general hospitals—are blocked by delayed transfers of care. Some 23 per cent. of those patients are awaiting public funding. In my constituency, 83 beds are blocked in the Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust.
	The Government will say, with some justification, that they have twice in the past 12 months allocated extra sums—cash for change and winter pressure money. Hampshire received £1.9 million last year and £2.4 million in September this year. Of course, that money is welcome, but this simply is not joined-up government. It shows how inadequate the social services standard spending assessments are for local government. This is a one-off sum—local authorities do not how much they will get or when they will get it, but the revenue consequences for social services continue year after year. There is a strategic problem of loss of beds in residential and nursing homes, aggravated by measures introduced by the Government.

Jim Cunningham: When the right hon. Gentleman was in government, does he recall the representations that were made about changes to the formula that would have meant extra provision for social services and the fact that his Government refused to make those changes?

George Young: I regard that as a spent conviction. Yes, I remember receiving an unending series of deputations. Any Member of this House with any ingenuity can develop a case showing that his local authority has had a raw deal under the revenue support grant system. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not lack ingenuity in making his case, and I hope that he was listened to sympathetically.
	Let me return to the strategic problems of social services. There is a net loss of beds in residential and nursing homes, which has a direct impact on the performance of the NHS. The net loss of beds in Hampshire in the past three years has been 62, 277 and 279, with 400 likely this year. So the debate that has been launched must embrace both the NHS and social services.
	I hope that the Government's response to the two strategic issues that I have outlined is not to turn their back on the development of a complementary scheme alongside the NHS. I am slightly worried that the Government see a frantic programme of administrative reform of the NHS as an adequate substitute for the more thorough debate that I outlined. The problems are not likely to be put right by a further round of turbulent administrative reform.
	The problems that confront the NHS are pay awards and other costs rising faster than the inflation uplift; the formula for distributing funds around the country, which is hopelessly flawed; staff recruitment and retention, which leads to the excessive use of agency staff; and delayed transfers of care, which mean that hospitals have to treat more people than they should. The real debate on the NHS should focus on those problems and the broader issues of funding. There is an appetite outside the House for a proper debate on how we fund the NHS and health in this country. I hope that the Government are listening.

Frank Field: My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) reminded the House that although many of us want to concentrate on the health service, the debate is on the funding of public services. Like him, I have just finished visiting all the reception classes in my constituency. Their one message is, as he said, that schools have never had so much money to spend in the way in which they wish to spend it. The extent to which we freed up the ability of schools to make decisions is a lesson that we can learn in the health debate, because we have not given that freedom to our local hospitals.
	I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if, like other hon. Members, I concentrate on the national health service. I also hope that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) will forgive me for suggesting later in my short contribution that his comparison between the way in which pensions have developed in this country and the way in which health might develop is, I fear, flawed.
	Within the space of a week, we heard two towering performances by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is one of the great princes of the platform. He is also one of those politicians who rarely uses his skills, and does so only if he wishes to present a message and, as is often the case, to reposition his party. During the past week, we saw the Chancellor use those considerable skills to reposition the governing party with regard to its views on taxation. Although that debate holds great promise, it also holds great dangers, both for the NHS and for Labour as a governing party. Like all hon. Members, I want more to be spent on health and, certainly like all Labour Members, I want more to be spent through the NHS. I shall dwell on the dangers later in my contribution.
	I did not share the euphoria with which some of my Labour colleagues greeted the announcement that we were going to increase direct taxation. I remember fighting, and losing, elections in which we wanted to increase direct taxation. We won in 1997 for a number of reasons: for instance, the Tory Government had been in office for far too long and we had a leader in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who was, and still is, a winner.
	We also won because we made two specific pledges on taxation. We said that in the first stage we would keep to Tory spending plans for the first two years and would not increase direct taxation. Those are the achievements of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Without my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and those two pledges by the Chancellor, I do not believe that we would have won in 1997 or obtained the majority that we did in the last general election.

Evan Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Frank Field: As the hon. Gentleman has stopped squirming, I will certainly give way.

Evan Harris: The right hon. Gentleman's contribution is thoughtful, but he is basing his comments on two assumptions: first, that it was necessary to make such pledges to beat the Conservative party in 1997 and 2001, and secondly, that there is an implied commitment to put up direct taxes. Is not the problem that the Government hint that they will put up taxes, but the only ones that they will not raise are fair, direct, income-related taxes? The fear is that they will put up unfair, indirect, stealth taxes instead.

Frank Field: The Chancellor has made it clear that we will, if need be, increase direct taxation. If the hon. Gentleman has not learned that, he has not been paying much attention to the debate over the past seven days.
	It is important for Labour Members to read carefully what our electorate tell pollsters, and what they tell us during election campaigns. Voters in Birkenhead, as elsewhere, love the game that they play with pollsters. When they know that there is no possibility of a party that will increase direct taxation being elected, they tell pollsters that they would love to have a party that will increase direct taxation. The response from voters to a Government who feel it necessary directly to increase the contribution to the NHS will be totally different. My experience during the election was that most people feel that they already pay a very large part of their income in tax; some believe that it is far too much, and many do not believe that they get value for money.
	It is against that background that we come to a debate about protecting and enhancing the position of the NHS. There is a real danger of some Members in the House reading too simply the messages about Europe. Opposition Front Benchers read the position wrongly in looking to advances in Europe to support their argument that we can increase choice by increasing the numbers of people in this country using private medical care. There is one significant difference between this country and most countries in Europe: in Europe there is an abundance of doctors and nurses, and in this country there is a shortage.
	If one suggests that more people in this country should go private, the resources—apart from the consultants, doctors and nurses who might work extra overtime to meet that demand—can come only from the NHS itself. One would be moving the demand around. That is different from the situation in most European countries, where people have paid handsomely in the past for a very large number and an easy supply of doctors and nurses, and where such a policy might be pursued.
	As the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire seemed to imply, there is no major difference between the role that pensions play in Europe and the role that the health service plays in this country. In Europe, it is impossible for Governments to cut back on state pensions. In post-war settlements, pensions have played a part that they do not play in this country. That is why the finances of those countries in the everyone will experience such difficulties in the decade ahead. Germany, France and Italy are planning levels of expenditure for public pensions which are not sustainable, yet when any of those Governments try to cut provision, people move into the streets and the Government quickly withdraw.
	That is totally different from the position in this country, where people do not get het up about whether they are to have a private pension, a company pension or a state pension. In this country, the part of the post-war settlement which voters care about is the national health service, and they will vote for parties that support their views on the NHS. The live rail that kills politicians in Europe is pensions, and the live rail that has in the past killed politicians in this country, and might again, is the NHS. Politicians grapple with the NHS with an ever- present sense of danger. Although there is considerable desire for the NHS to be reformed and services to be made more adequate, there is not yet agreement among the electorate on what the level of expenditure should be, or on what steps need to be taken to ensure that the sort of freedom that is beginning to operate in our classrooms begins to operate in our hospitals.
	Although the Opposition were rather foolish to describe the NHS as they have this evening, it is fair to say that it is our last nationalised industry and the only one that this country has ever cared about. We face not only the question of funding, but the question of how to use that funding to change a centralised, centrally directed, ration book-type health scheme into a system that far more effectively reflects consumer preferences, in a way that we experience in almost every other part of our lives. If people find that difficult to envisage at the moment, the electorate will teach us the lesson very soon.
	My final point follows on from the theme that I have been presenting. The age in which we can have unhypothecated tax increases and easily win elections is over. That is not to say that I do not welcome the debate, or that I do not have views on ways in which additional funds for the NHS can be raised, but if Labour Members think that voters will agree to increases in direct taxation proposed under the banner of the NHS without those increases being directly linked to increases in the size of the health budget, we have another think coming.
	We already have a form of hypothecated tax in this country. I implore the Government, when they are giving serious consideration to the alternatives in an open debate on how to raise the necessary revenue, to think carefully about using the national insurance base as the means by which additional funds are raised. However, Labour Members have been peddling three fallacies about that way of proceeding.
	Those who read the Prime Minister's interview in The Independent on Sunday will know that he warned of real dangers in using the national insurance base as the means of funding future increases in the NHS. There are employers and employees contributions, and our experience in Europe tells us what increasing employers' national insurance contributions does. However, it is possible to have increases only in employees contributions. Reading the Prime Minister's interview, I was reminded of the statement supposedly made by Sidney Webb when, after the fall of the Labour Government in 1931, the coalition Government led by the Tories immediately came off the gold standard. He said, "Nobody told us we could come off the gold standard." My message to the Government tonight is simple: it is possible to increase only employees national insurance contributions if one decides to adopt the route of having an hypothecated tax for the NHS.
	Secondly, it is argued that we should not adopt that course because national insurance contributions would be cyclical. One only has to say it to see the fallacy. Income tax is cyclical and there is no evidence in the figures that are produced that national insurance contributions are more cyclical than revenues from income tax. In fact, if the cyclical argument is to be deployed against using national insurance contributions to raise additional funds for the NHS, the Chancellor's suggestion this evening is also faulty. Direct taxation is not more buoyant than national insurance contributions.
	The third reason why I want us to adopt that approach is that although MPs might think that national insurance contributions and income tax are the same thing, our constituents and the electorate do not. One of the reasons why the Conservatives got away for so long with being regarded as a tax-cutting party is that they reduced income tax while more than making up for it by increasing national insurance contributions, and most people in this country did not regard increases in national insurance contributions as increases in direct taxation.
	The Labour party has crossed an important threshold. If we are ready to contemplate raising direct taxation, if necessary, to finance the increase in funds needed to secure the future of the NHS, I hope that we will do so carefully and mindfully. I hope that we do not believe our rhetoric about all the things that the Opposition are supposed to be concerned about, or that voters are keen on increasing taxes. We have been in a dreamland where, thanks to a buoyant economy and the skill of the Chancellor, there has been a surplus in the budget. That surplus is about to disappear during this Parliament and, when it does, choices will have to be made and we will have to defend to our constituents the need to increase revenue—I believe that we will have to do so—to finance the NHS and secure its future. Voters may tell pollsters one thing about paying increased taxes when they know that they will never have to do so but, in that difficult terrain, may behave differently when faced with those increases.
	On the difficult journey on which we are now embarking, I hope that the Government will not dismiss out of hand a hypothecated approach to our financing. As I said earlier, the age of being able to shove up direct taxes and think that people will vote for us is over. Now, we have to negotiate, increase by increase, with the voters; we could not have a better subject on which to begin those negotiations than the NHS.

Andrew Mitchell: It is always an enormous pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and never more so than tonight; he makes a thoughtful contribution to welfare and social affairs issues. He spoke about the two towering performances that the Chancellor has already given this week; I hope that that did not include the one that he gave tonight. I hope that the whole House agrees that the speeches of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) elevated a debate which sank following the scintillating performance of my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor.
	The right hon. Member for Birkenhead made two points on which I should like to comment. First, he is right that the lack of doctors and nurses is at the root of our problems; we need to recruit far more of them to the health service, and I shall return to that later. Secondly, to paraphrase the right hon. Gentleman, he said that politicians tamper with the NHS, a much-loved British institution, at their peril. I profoundly disagree that the time is not right for a proper elevated debate on the future of the NHS; the system simply is not working at the moment, another point to which I shall return to later.

Frank Field: I was not saying that we should not have that debate or that big changes were not necessary. All that I was saying was that there might be huge political costs if we get it wrong.

Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification. It is vital that we take a serious look at the state of the NHS because it is not delivering for our constituents. I very much hope that that debate will not be characterised by comments such as those by the Chancellor, in which he referred to the Tories wanting £50 billion- worth of cuts, or those from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, who said that the Conservatives do not support the NHS and, indeed, that there are no charges on the health service, when significant taxation goes into it.
	We must elevate the debate above such comments, which were epitomised by the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who stated as an article of faith that the Tories want to privatise the health service; quite simply, we do not. The interesting analogy that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire drew with the pensions regime is worthy of greater comment than the right hon. Member for Birkenhead suggested. I hope that that too will inform public debate on those matters.
	Tonight's debate is timely, as the subject is of immense concern to our constituents. I declare an indirect interest, in that my wife is a doctor in general practice, so I take a particular interest in these matters at home, as well as in the House. I have been away in the real world for the past four years, and on returning to the House of Commons to represent my constituents in Sutton Coldfield, I am astonished at the massive increase in complaints about the quality of the health service that make up my postbag. Complaints about and problems with the NHS are by far the most important element of the post that I receive every day, and I am sure that my experience is not unique in the House.
	In a wealthy society, which ours undoubtedly is, it is a basic requirement that our constituents should be able to receive health care of the quality that their counterparts in continental Europe receive. That is not the case at present. I was astonished to see in a French newspaper the headline, "Les anglais exportent les malades". It may be acceptable at the margins for sick people from Britain to go overseas for treatment, but it is not acceptable as a policy that our sick should have to go overseas to Europe to be cured. Were we to behave in that way in any other aspect of life, it would be entirely unacceptable.
	The Government's response to tonight's debate and over the past week or so has been cynical. At times it has been irrelevant, and at other times, downright misleading. We were told last week that it was important to decentralise the NHS, so that decision making takes place more at local level, yet only a few days before the House debated a Bill that does exactly the opposite. Under the Bill, which was ill thought out, 58 powers for the Secretary of State were added or reinforced. He will determine the funding of every primary care trust in the country. A chief executive quoted in the Government's own report said that he thought that the changes were the most ill-conceived set of changes in a decade, and wondered whether the intention was to torpedo the NHS plan.
	If we have learned anything over the past 30 years, it is that administrative reform—tinkering reform—is not the answer to the problems of our health service. Since Sir Keith Joseph started, we have seen all sorts of reforms. I have sat on Committees that considered Bills introducing such reform. It simply does not work, as everyone seems to realise, apart from the Government.

Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the saddest aspects is the Government's paucity of ambition? In Berlin recently, I was speaking to the Herr Professor Doktor who runs one of the hospitals there. I asked what the waiting list was. He said, "We do have a few troubles. Sometimes we can't get the patients in the same day. They have to wait till tomorrow." I explained to him that our NHS plan has an ambition that in eight years, nobody should have to wait for more than three months. He was horrified. Does not that anecdote reflect the paucity of ambition of the Government?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. He emphasises that in this country we have too few doctors and nurses, as I observed earlier. The problem is getting worse. In Birmingham last year, we had seven vacancies for general practice. This year we have 65—a massive increase.
	I said earlier that the Government's approach was cynical. We have heard in the debate about the way in which the Wanless report has been misrepresented, and how its terms of reference made its conclusions inevitable. I should like the Government to publish the terms of reference of the Adair Turner report. We are told that it will not be published. However, the House should hear what Mr. Adair Turner is being asked to do and how that fits into the NHS 10-year plan.
	On Tuesday, we heard the Chancellor promising £1 billion more for the NHS, which we welcomed. The following day, after some contrary comment in The Sun, he made a handbrake turn to Wapping to explain that that was not his plan at all, and that there would be no new money until there was structural reform. Only a couple of weeks ago, the Prime Minister said in answer to a question at Prime Minister's questions that when the Tories left office, there were no new hospitals being built. That was completely untrue, as a parliamentary question answered the following week made clear. We also saw the cynicism of saying that there were 24 hours to save the national health service in 1997. No wonder the public are deeply cynical about politicians—a view that will not have been enhanced by Labour's contribution to this debate.
	Last week, a clear commitment was made to improve spending on health by bringing it up to the European average, but yesterday, the article in The Independent on Sunday that has been mentioned by other hon. Members said that that was only a target in broad terms.

Roger Casale: Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the announcement of a debate about the future of public expenditure, and does he expect that the Conservatives will come out of it in the same way that they are entering it—by pledging cuts to public expenditure and threatening privatisation of the health service?

Andrew Mitchell: Of course I welcome a debate on public expenditure. That is why I am speaking now. However, the reality is that, under this Government, waiting lists have not decreased, but increased. Waiting lists for in-patients have increased by 63 per cent. since 1997. It is no good blaming the last Conservative Government for that. The current Government have had four and a half years to make an impact after having promised to do so, but have failed to achieve that.
	I recently tabled a parliamentary question on in-patient and out-patient waiting lists in the local hospital in my constituency, the Good Hope hospital. I discovered that, in March 1997, five of my constituents were waiting more than 12 months for in-patient treatment, while there are now 152 waiting. When the Conservatives left government in 1997, 18 out-patients of the hospital were waiting more than 26 weeks, but there are now 135 such patients. When we left government, there were 287 out-patients waiting more than 13 weeks—a very high figure—but today there are 750. Throughout Birmingham, we have seen the proportion of patients waiting more than 12 months increase since the last election from 0.1 to 2 per cent. That is an enormous increase and we would have expected more contrition from the Government and more about how they would do better than were contained in the crass allegations made over the Dispatch Box by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
	To add insult to injury for the hard-working doctors and nurses and other dedicated staff in the Good Hope hospital in my constituency, they were recently marked down in terms of the number of stars that were awarded for service to my constituents. When we investigated the reason for that marking down, we discovered on careful analysis that it was done because of lack of beds and trolley waits. However, the reason for those waits had nothing to do with the excellent and dedicated staff in my constituency, but related to bed blocking in Birmingham and the failure of social services. As I said, the result was to add insult to injury, especially as the hospital had managed through its own endeavours to free up some funds to help with an innovative scheme to address the problem.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) started an important debate when he said that the Conservative Government had delivered on low tax and that it was now up to the Conservative party to deliver on policies for our public services. I strongly agree with what he had to say. It is very encouraging that my party is considering systems in other countries. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is in Stockholm today and we are considering a range of different systems throughout the world.
	The issue that we are addressing is how to deliver to our fellow citizens the quality of health care that they have a right to expect. I do not believe that the Labour party can achieve that, as it is wedded to a model of delivery that does not work. It is right that we should be committed to a service that is provided on the basis of clinical need and regardless of ability to pay. On the current system, it is absolutely clear that although Labour has pumped in money just as we did, outcomes have continued to deteriorate. It will discover that public disillusionment will grow as more taxes are spent and as health care of a standard that our constituents are entitled to expect continues to elude them.
	The Government should encourage the private sector. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire made a most interesting point about workplace insurance schemes being provided for families. I believe that that is part of the solution in terms of getting more capacity and funding into the health service in the medium term.
	I should like to end on a different matter: the benefit to the public services of private finance initiatives or public-private partnership projects—a most important policy that has been seamless between the previous Conservative Government and the current Government.
	It is a great thing that the PPP provides for developments in infrastructure that otherwise would not happen for many years. I have written to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to support an excellent PPP scheme that will benefit the Arthur Terry school in my constituency by replacing old school buildings.
	The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has, however, fundamentally undermined the PPP system. I am not especially interested in whether he has to resign because of his stewardship of Railtrack, but I care about the damage that he has inflicted on PPP. He simply does not understand it. I hope that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury understands that the actions of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will increase the costs of PPP schemes. Capital providers will not put up the money when such uncertainty exists. No amount of equity risk premium will compensate for that. For a few cheap cheers from Labour Back Benchers, he has inflicted massive, definitive damage on a good policy that enhances public service delivery.
	Morale is falling throughout the NHS. Too many changes have taken place. In the west midlands, 37 per cent. of junior doctors break the working hours limit, primary care lists are closing and the Government have introduced a Bill that will do nothing to help because it is bureaucratic, centralised, rushed and wasteful.

John Bercow: The debate has been stimulating and revealing in equal measure. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) opened it in characteristically incisive fashion. He made a series of specific and detailed points, which collectively constituted a penetrating critique of the Government's position. He also posed several challenges. I shall revert to the failure to respond to them shortly and with appropriate relish.
	Before I do that, I shall refer to some other important contributions. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) made a typically measured, thoughtful and open-minded speech. He made an important analogy with the pensions industry. We should not skate over that; it cannot readily be dismissed.
	The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor), who is a worthy sparring partner, disappointed me. I hope that he will not lose too much sleep over that. He drily and unimaginatively supported the retention of the status quo. New Liberal, old policy.
	The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) said that he supported the average EU expenditure on health. However, when challenged to specify the amount of money that would be spent on health by the end of the Parliament, he was unable to answer. If I may so describe him, he was a horse that fell at the first hurdle.
	The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made a characteristically effective contribution. He fired a shot across the bows of the Treasury Bench and warned of the dangers of willy-nilly increases in taxation. He is always polite, sometimes speaks in code and is invariably challenging to the Government. His strictures on the ration book state were welcome and timely. It is time that they were heeded.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) rightly denounced the Government for their cynical approach. He highlighted increasing problems with the provision of health care, excoriated the Government's reactionary attitude to the private finance initiative and demanded a proper, constructive and detailed debate on the inadequacies of the national health service.

Roger Casale: The Conservative party's attitude to public expenditure in general and the health service in particular proved to be the Achilles heel of the previous shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo). As the hon. Gentleman is so close to the current shadow Chancellor, will he help him by ruling out once and for all the introduction of medical charges for NHS patients by the Tories?

John Bercow: That contribution was as backward looking as it was ill targeted. I have learned my lesson; giving way to the hon. Gentleman is rarely worth the expenditure of time that it entails. He made a mess of his first effort; he would be unwise to make a second attempt.
	In the course of my right hon. and learned Friend's contribution, he posed a series of questions to the Chancellor. Those questions fell into four categories and, if the Chancellor was able to add them up, there were 16 specific questions. In the category of questions on reform, my right hon. and learned Friend asked what the Chancellor had in mind, when the reforms would be implemented, what the criteria for the allocation of funds for expenditure by health authorities would be, and when the decisions would be made on those allocation criteria. Answers to those four questions came there none.
	We move on to the second category of questions, which might neatly be encapsulated by the term "Adair", on the subject of the Adair Turner committee and, presumably, the potential report resulting therefrom. My right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that the Government had previously said that the deliberations and any ensuing report would be private. Was that, he inquired, still the case, or had the Government changed their mind? Would we be told what the conclusions of that committee were and, if so, when? Answers to those questions came there none.
	We move on to the third category, relating to the absurd position at the heart of the Government of total inconsistency, confusion and argument on the subject of meeting the European average level of public expenditure on the health service. My right hon. and learned Friend asked the Chancellor whether he would clarify the Government's position. Was the objective a firm commitment, he asked, or did it amount merely to a vague aspiration? Would the spending on the average level in the European Union be based on the average level in 2000, 2001, 2005 or 2006? Would that average be based on the inclusion of the United Kingdom in the measurement, or would it exclude us? Would the assessment be based on weighted populations or merely on crude numbers? When would there be a delivery on the pledge? Would it be in 2005, in 2006, at some unspecified date in the future or—more likely—never? The Chancellor turns away now, just as he ducked my right hon. and learned Friend's questions earlier.
	I shall remind the House of a trait that now bedevils the Chancellor. It is becoming monotonous, predictable, see-through and progressively more ineffectual every time he unwittingly or wittingly deploys it. In the opening sentence of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, he said—I repeat this for the elucidation of the House—that he would answer every single point that had been raised by my right hon. and learned Friend.

Derek Twigg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Bercow: No, I will not.
	I am very worried about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the shadow Chancellor put 16 specific detailed questions to him in a 20-minute speech, and in the course of a 25-minute speech, the Chancellor, having said in sentence one that he would answer all of them, conspicuously failed to answer any.

Derek Twigg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

John Bercow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that I need any protection from the hon. Member for Halton, but I am nevertheless grateful for your ministrations.
	I simply say to the Chancellor that every time he says that he will deal with the points, he fails to do so. In four and a half years of observing and listening to the Chancellor, I have never heard a worse speech from him, either in the House or outside it. We know that the Government are in total disarray on hypothecation, on social insurance, and on specificity about the means by which the health service is to be funded. On the one hand, we have the position of the Chancellor—

Derek Twigg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) wishes to give way.

John Bercow: I am very happy to deal with the organ grinder, Mr. Speaker, but I am not all that interested in the monkey.
	The reality is that the Chancellor is opposed by his right hon. Friend—I use the word "friend" distinctly loosely in this context—the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). He is also opposed by the Secretary of State for Health. Can he look for friendship to the Leader of the House, who somewhat undermined his position at business questions last Thursday? That seems unlikely, given that the two of them have barely been able to stand the sight of each other for the past 20 years.
	Does the Chancellor have the support of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Apparently, she is ditching him too, because she supports some form of hypothecation. Then we come to the Chancellor's colleague, the chairman of the Labour party and Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke). The right hon. Gentleman has already stitched up the Chancellor in Scotland by getting rid of his candidate for the position of First Minister. He has undermined him on other subjects too: he is second-guessing him on the euro, for instance, and he does not agree with him about this.
	The Chancellor must really ask how many friends he has, and the answer seems to be not very many. If someone is rude to his friends, intimidates them, belittles them, ignores them, does not answer them and makes announcements on their behalf without even telling them until the last minute, is it any wonder that he will ultimately be disliked, vilified and plotted against? That is what is happening to the Chancellor.
	If the Chancellor is the sort of Minister who offers a prescription before giving a diagnosis, it is a very good job that he opted to come into politics rather than becoming a general practitioner in our national health service. He specialises in not answering questions. Is it any wonder that productivity growth in British manufacturing is so bad, when the Chancellor's productivity in answering questions is even worse?
	What does the Chancellor make of existing public expenditure on the national health service? He likes to see himself as the all-powerful figure, the dominant creature in the Government, dictating the course of events, in control of the show. I remind the House that, since 1997, the Government have been responsible for the failure to spend more than £5,000 million that the Chancellor and his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary have allocated to spending Departments, but which they have not had the wit, competence or sagacity to spend. [Interruption.]
	It is no good the Chancellor chuntering from a sedentary position in evident disapproval of what I am saying, when he has failed to do anything about that consistent underspend. The underspend in the NHS means that 70,000 heart bypass operations that would otherwise have been performed have not been performed. What has the Chancellor to say about the £10 billion a year that is being improperly spent in the health service—wasted on fraud, used in the context of bed-blocking, and devoted to sick pay, hospital-acquired infections and the rest?
	Despite all that, the Chancellor has the sheer audacity to come to the House and defend his position on the ground of equity. He talks about an equitable national health service, which I interpret as meaning "fair". Does the Chancellor think it fair that people in this country are sicker than they were before? We Conservatives do not. Does he think it fair that more people are having to wait longer than ever before in Labour Britain? If he does, we do not. Does he think it fair that people are dying earlier in this country than they are, on average, in its European counterparts? We do not consider that fair or acceptable. Survival rates in this country for leukaemia, prostate cancer and breast cancer are all pitifully inadequate in comparison with those in the European Union.
	Finally, we turn to the interesting issue of private expenditure. I leave the Government and the House to reflect on it. The Government are condemning the use of private funds, yet it is happening all over the country. A private trust recently raised no less than £14 million to assist in the rebuilding of one orthopaedic hospital trust: £2 million was spent on the orthotic unit, £4 million on the creation of a muscular-skeletal disorders research building, £6 million as a contribution to a £25 million private finance initiative project, and up to £750,000 on a hydrotherapy pool. I suggest that the Chancellor use the pool; it will not improve his expertise in health policy, but it might do something to improve his temper.
	Where is that hospital? It is in the Oxford, East constituency. It is the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre NHS trust, in the constituency of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I am not going to accuse him of hypocrisy because you, Mr. Speaker, would rule me out of order. I say simply that it is two-faced. It is an example of double standards. It reflects the difference between what the right hon. Gentleman wants to saddle the rest of the country with and what he is pleased to accept in respect of his constituents.
	The British public are fed up with the clashing egos, the competing ambitions, the corrosive tensions at the heart of the Government. They are not interested in the Chancellor's ambitions. They do not like the unedifying spectacle. What they want is a decent health service, reliable provision, policies that translate care from a word to a deed for the majority of hard-working, long-suffering people in this country. The Chancellor's policy will not deliver. We are determined to produce a coherent, credible, costed and attractive policy that will deliver. [Hon. Members: "When?"] Members will hear of that policy in readiness for the next general election.

Andrew Smith: I have been here throughout the debate and heard the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) as well as the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). The hon. Member for Buckingham has a thing or two to learn about monkeys and organ grinders. Never could we have heard a better example of someone's eloquence outrunning his judgment than in the hon. Gentleman's speech.
	The hon. Gentleman refers to the fund raising for the Nuffield orthopaedic hospital in my constituency. I am proud of that fund-raising effort. I commend the energy and support that Lord Tebbit has put into that out of personal commitment. I would not seek to use that for political purposes, here or anywhere else. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must be able to hear the Minister.

Andrew Smith: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have some calmness.

Andrew Smith: There are two striking things about this debate. The first is that the shadow Chancellor described our national health service, a proud creation of this country and something of which we are all proud, as a Stalinist creation. The second is that he refused conspicuously when challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and others to rule out charging. He gave the game away as to what the Tory agenda is. It is an agenda of privatisation and of charging for the health service.
	It is clear where the dividing lines are in the debate. Where we will invest in the NHS, reform it and work with staff to raise its performance, the Conservative Front-Bench team will not commit to NHS investment, it has no ideas for NHS reform and, as it toys with half-baked ideas for private insurance, it would destroy the principles of the NHS, just as the Conservatives opposed its foundation.
	As my right hon. and hon. Friends have pointed out, a key principle is at stake. We believe in an NHS free at the point of need, so that patients receive care on the basis of clinical need and not ability to pay. I believe that that principle is strongly supported by the British people. After all, it is about fairness. In walking away from it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) pointed out speaking on behalf of his constituents, the Conservative leadership would threaten millions of people with insecurity, with costs that they cannot afford, and with health care being unavailable when they need it most. In promoting their private health agenda for what they describe as the Stalinist NHS, Conservative Members would land a body blow on NHS staff, whose skills and dedication we depend on for better health care. Conservative Members will rue the day that their leaders set off down that road—just as they already regret initiating this debate in which only two Tory Back Benchers spoke after the shadow Chancellor, who could not get out of the Chamber fast enough. They have not one thought-out policy to offer.
	I shall reply to some of the speeches. If I followed him correctly, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) was urging a supplementary social insurance model. I took his comments in the spirit in which they were made, which was certainly not the spirit of the shadow Chancellor. I think that the right hon. Gentleman believes in a national health service that is free at the point of need, as he promised in his manifesto. He is nodding his agreement. He clearly disagrees with the shadow Chancellor and recognises that charges would be a disaster.
	The danger of such schemes is not only that employers and employees have to pay more, but that, as has happened in France, they often increasingly require top-up contributions. Moreover, the administrative burden of such schemes frequently grows—as it did in Germany, where the Government were forced to intervene when administrative charges exceeded 4.8 per cent. of health spending, compared with the 3.8 per cent. of health spending to which we keep administrative charges in the cost-effective NHS.

Edward Davey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Smith: No; if I may, I shall reply to the debate.
	In a characteristically thoughtful speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) pointed out that, in contrast to most European countries, the key issue for the United Kingdom is that, without a surplus of nurses and doctors, expansion of the private sector would be at the expense of the NHS and those who depend on it. He also pointed out the ever-present danger for politicians of grappling with what he called the "live rail" of the NHS. Today, the shadow Chancellor jumped down on the tracks and grabbed that live rail when he threatened the British people with charges.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead also urged that the NHS be funded only with national insurance contributions levied on employees. I am sure that he will understand it if I say that I shall take that as a Budget representation.
	The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) said that a lot of things are wrong with the NHS, but, although I listened carefully to his speech, he made not one positive suggestion about what to do about them. He said that there are not enough nurses and doctors, but the Government have already recruited an extra 17,000 nurses and an extra 6,700 doctors. Moreover, what was the position before we entered office? Furthermore, with the funding that we are making available, which would not be made available if Conservative Members were in government, we are bringing forward 20,000 extra nurses and 10,000 extra doctors. We shall achieve that because we are increasing the resources and share of GDP provided to the national health service, not introducing charges or cutting public spending to 35 per cent. of GDP as advocated by the shadow Chancellor.
	We believe in the NHS and are ambitious for what it can and must achieve. Moreover, as the interim Wanless report points out, United Kingdom health outcomes have not been good enough, public expectations are increasing, and over a long period we have not invested enough to get the health services that the British people want. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer spelled out in the pre-Budget report, we need to spend a higher proportion of national income on health, coupled with reform to improve delivery. If hon. Members accept that, they will accept that the money can come from only three main sources: general taxation, social insurance, or private payments.
	We say that it is right that it should come principally from general taxation. We say that because, as the Wanless report states:
	"The main disadvantage of a predominantly social insurance based model is that the revenue base is more concentrated, falling on employment to a greater extent than in countries with a higher proportion of general taxation funding. As a result, many countries such as France with a tradition of social insurance, have been shifting the balance in their funding towards general taxation."
	On private funding, Wanless said:
	"Private funding mechanisms tend to be inequitable, regressive . . . have weak incentives for cost control, high administration costs and can deter appropriate use."
	That is the future to which the shadow Chancellor wants to condemn the people of this country with his proposals for charges. I have heard no argument from Conservative Members that calls those conclusions into question.

Edward Davey: Given that Ministers have been so against charges in the NHS tonight, will the right hon. Gentleman commit the Government to ending charges for eye tests and dental check-ups?

Andrew Smith: It was this Government who ended charges for eye tests for people over 60. If it were not for our commitment to resourcing public services, which would never have been possible with Liberal Democrat policies, that would not have happened. Of course we reject charging for clinical services.
	As we have seen in the months since the general election, it is our party and our Government who are reaffirming a commitment to the principles of the national health service, hugely increasing health spending and matching that expenditure with reform, putting 75 per cent. of the funding through the primary care trust, devolving responsibility and empowering front-line staff.
	The Conservative party, having promised that no one would be forced to take out private insurance, now wants to introduce charging for health care services but will not say who will be charged how much for what.

John Bercow: The Chief Secretary has already gone one better than the Chancellor: he has so far provided half an answer to one of the 16 questions put by my right hon. and learned Friend. In the remaining three minutes, will he answer some of the other 15 and a half?

Andrew Smith: There is a lot to debate as we decide how to develop the NHS, but that contribution is barely worthy of our attention.
	The public want a publicly funded, comprehensive, high-quality service, available on the basis of clinical need, not ability to pay. One thing is clear: the shadow Chancellor did his party, and indeed many decent Conservative voters, a great disservice last week and again tonight, when he derided this as a Labour question. The truth is that it used to be a Conservative question, too, and perhaps still is for those of his more moderate colleagues who are able to resist the ever increasing power of the fundamentalists in their constituency associations.
	The shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition have confirmed that they are more extreme than ever. Their abandonment of a one nation health service is a final nail in the coffin of one nation Conservatism.
	We are determined to secure comprehensive, high-quality services available on the basis of clinical need, not ability to pay. That is not just a Labour question: it is the British people's question. It is in applying the best values and instincts of the British people for fairness and mutual support that we, and not the Conservative party, will provide the answer: a properly resourced national health service that delivers for all the people.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 297.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
	The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 167.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House deplores the attempt by HM Opposition to draw attention away from their lack of coherent policies on public service improvement; welcomes the Government's determination to uphold the highest standards of integrity and honesty in public life; acknowledges that the Government has been open about the standards Ministers, Civil Servants and Special Advisers are expected to uphold; welcomes the publication of the new Ministerial code including the requirements on greater transparency never seen before, attaching the highest importance to the prompt and efficient handling of Parliamentary Questions and correspondence; and commends the professionalism and integrity with which the Government continues to conduct departmental business in the best traditions of public service.

LAND REGISTRATION BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second reading committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Question agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

LAND REGISTRATION BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Land Registration Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees in respect of dealings with the Land Registry.—[Mr. Kemp.]
	Question agreed to.

LAND REGISTRATION BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Land Registration Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Chief Land Registrar or the Lord Chancellor attributable to the Act.—[Mr. Kemp.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Security of Energy Supply

That this House takes note of European Union documents nos. 5619/01, the Commission Green Paper, Towards a European Strategy for the Security of Energy Supply, and 7218/01, relating to common rules for the internal market in electricity and natural gas; and supports the Government's welcome of both these documents as the Green Paper provides analysis of the energy supply situation and the proposed Directive and Regulation would increase competition in the internal energy market and facilitate cross-border trading in electricity and thereby contribute to security of supply.—[Mr. Kemp.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Local Government

That the draft The Local Government Commission for England (Transfer of Functions) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 14th November, be approved.—[Mr. Kemp.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Terrorism

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Enforcement of External Orders) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 14th November, be approved.—[Mr. Kemp.]
	Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
	That,
	(1) At the sittings on Tuesday 11th, Wednesday 12th and Thursday 13th December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Lords Messages relating to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill have been received; and
	(2) At the sitting on Thursday 13th December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.

Hon. Members: Object.

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
	That this House, at its rising on Wednesday 19th December, do adjourn till Tuesday 8th January 2002.—[Mr. Kemp.]
	Question agreed to.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

Ordered,
	That Bob Spink be discharged from the Education and Skills Committee and Mr. Mark Simmonds be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993

Ordered,
	That, for the purposes of its approval under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Pre-Budget Report 2001 shall be treated as if it were an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).—[Mr. Kemp.]

BELMONT PRIMARY SCHOOL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]

Ashok Kumar: I am grateful—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do not stand in front of an hon. Member who is addressing the House.

Ashok Kumar: This debate is about an Ofsted inspection of a primary school in my constituency. It is not about challenging the bulk of the findings of Ofsted's inspection of Belmont school, nor about education policy. I fully support the Government's aim of raising standards through monitoring and inspection of schools and helping those that need improvement. The debate is about what I, the head, the teaching staff and the governors of the school believe is an inherent flaw in Ofsted's inspection structure—a flaw that was inserted by the legislation that gave birth to Ofsted.
	Belmont primary school is overseen by Redcar and Cleveland local education authority. It has 362 pupils on its roll and a well-respected head teacher, Colin Linthwaite. At the time of the inspection, a high percentage of the school's pupils came from outside its designated catchment zone; the figure has now reached 47 per cent. It is an improving school with continuing good results at key stages 1 and 2. I cannot stress too much that the school is one that I know personally as a Member of Parliament: I have visited it many times and I know that it possesses the indefinable but unmistakeable air of a happy school.
	Belmont primary school was visited by Ofsted in March 2000. It was not a happy inspection. Before it started, there were concerns that the registered inspector had not made contact with the school until prompted to do so by the head. There was also concern about the fact that the contractor and quality manager of West Yorkshire Inspection and Consultancy Services took part in all the pre-inspection meetings. At those meetings, I am told, he was seen to be taking on a greater role than his duties as quality assurance manager warranted. It then became known that the contractor and quality assurance manager was married to the registered inspector; Mr. and Mrs. Charlton were husband and wife.
	At first, it was thought that they would overcome the possible conflict of interest by acting professionally but, in the view of many in the school community, that did not happen. Comments by the contractor and quality assurance manager contributed to heightened anxiety among staff and the head. For example, there were comments on the accuracy of financial information submitted about the school—clearly a serious issue. Only later, after the head asked for the figures to be checked by the local education authority auditor, did the contractor accept that there were no problems.
	Such incidents led the school community to feel that the team came with a pre-determined agenda. Things did not get much better during the inspection itself. On one occasion, a class was interrupted so that feedback could be given—an incident felt by many staff to be unprofessional and inconsiderate. Only later was the head told that, in fact, it was not an observed lesson. If it was not, why was the detailed feedback based, one must assume, on a short viewing by an inspector? Some classroom visits were very brief indeed, many less than half an hour. A number of members of staff felt intimidated; one was observed in the morning in class, then interviewed during dinner time, to the extent of an inspector waiting for her outside a toilet, then twice after school.
	During the inspection, Mr. Linthwaite raised the issue of the quality of school statistical information that was requested. He pointed out that it was skewed by reorganisation and that the Goldstein report, commissioned by Ofsted, stated that inspectors should not look simply at figures in the abstract, but seek to quantify their social and demographic background. Knowledge of the report was denied both by the inspector and the contractor and quality assurance manager. When pressed on that, I am told that the contractor said that his wife's judgment should not be questioned; he spoke about his wife, not the inspector.
	After the inspection, the head teacher was told that the school had serious weaknesses. It was also made clear that the school community could not challenge the judgments. The attitude of the contractor and quality assurance manager were perceived as hostile. On one occasion, a feedback meeting involving the governing body was subjected to what can only be described as a unilateral attempt to suspend the meeting by the contractor and the quality assurance manager. Those present felt that he was attempting to avoid detailed questions being put to his wife; the incident was a telling symptom of the problem.
	The final report and the oral feedback did not mention strengths in many areas of the school's curriculum, nor did they focus on its capacity to improve. Negative comments were made in the inspection report about staff turnover, which did not acknowledge that some staff had left because they had been promoted elsewhere; others had retired on the ground of ill health; and that the school had a legacy of problems with falling rolls. Finally, sweeping statements were made about unsatisfactory teaching despite the fact that 83 per cent. of the teaching was seen as
	"satisfactory, good or very good".
	The school community was unhappy about those issues. It accepted that there was room for improvement and that no one is perfect, but was concerned that the report was biased and concentrated on negatives. That view was rooted in the perceived conflict of interest between the contractor and the quality assurance manager and the registered inspector, which centred on the fact that they were husband and wife. At that point, the school community began to consider resolving those issues through the Ofsted complaints procedure. The head teacher, obviously worried and concerned, came to see me at this point, and I urged him to press his complaints through the Ofsted procedure. Accordingly, the head wrote to Ofsted to raise the concerns on which I have elaborated.
	The letter of complaint was initially sent on by Ofsted to the contractor, asking him to organise a response from his wife. Given that the nub of the complaint was the relationship between the two, that was seen as perverse by many in the school community. The official reply from Ofsted dismissed those concerns and stated in a letter to Mr. Linthwaite on 9 June 2000 that
	"Mr. and Mrs. Charlton were professional people with extensive inspection experience"
	and that in its view, the independence of the inspection was not compromised. As that response came from the people involved, it was hardly surprising. The famous phrase, "They would say that, wouldn't they?" springs to mind.
	On the other issues of substance in the complaint about inspection procedure, Ofsted argued that it recognised Mr. Linthwaite's concerns but could not act on them. It stated:
	"Where there are conflicting accounts of events from both parties, OFSTED is unable to determine what actually happened."
	It continued:
	"It is because OFSTED attached equal weight to both versions. . . it is unable to come to a definitive view."
	If that principle were applied throughout the judiciary, it would make every judge redundant overnight.
	The reply led the head to take the matter to the second stage of the complaints procedure. He wrote to the Ofsted complaints adjudicator, making the same points and posing the issue of the long delay in the response to other detailed matters of concern. The adjudicator, Mrs. Elaine Rassaby, was, by contrast, far more thorough and critical of Ofsted.
	In an adjudication dated 4 March this year, Mrs. Rassaby agreed with Mr. Linthwaite on a number of issues. She felt that the comments made by Ofsted about the relationship between the registered inspector and the contractor and quality assurance manager was, to say the least, unhelpful. She stated that Mr. Linthwaite had not been given a full substantive response by Ofsted. In her view, by basing its reply to Mr. Linthwaite solely on the registered inspector's response to the complaint, it had prevented objective assessment of the substance of the complaint; and the comment that the inspector and contractor were
	"professional people with extensive inspection experience"
	was merely an observation. It was, in the adjudicator's opinion, inappropriate and irrelevant to the substance of the complaint.
	The adjudicator recognised Mr. Linthwaite's concerns about the relationship, and his view that the relationship denied him fair consideration of his complaints by the contractor. However, she also thought that the existence of the complaints procedure in itself would serve to prevent collusion between any two parties, by an act of commission or omission. In her final recommendation she stated first, that Ofsted should apologise to Mr. Linthwaite, and secondly, that account should be taken of her concerns that Ofsted's response was based on the views of the inspector. Finally, the adjudicator declared that the comments that Mr. and Mrs. Charlton's professional experience and history should be enough were dismissive and inappropriate.
	Ofsted's response came in May 2001. Barry King, from the office of the chief inspector of schools, replied in a detailed and thoughtful nine-page letter to Mr. Linthwaite. Many issues were dealt with and some resolved. On some issues—the conduct of the inspector and the contractor in pre-inspection meetings; the conduct and attitude of the inspection staff; and the contractor's attempt to close a feedback meeting with the governors—Mr. Linthwaite's complaints were upheld.
	However, the crucial issue of the relationship and potential conflict of interest between the contractor and the inspector was ignored. Mr. King stated that Ofsted's view was simply that there
	"is no requirement for the contractor to be independent of the Registered Inspector, and indeed the contractor and the Registered Inspector may be one and the same person."
	He went on to say again that any suspicion of collusion could be dealt with through the complaints procedure. I must say that that reply contained no thought about the fact that the simplest way of removing the suspicion of collusion would be to issue a direction to split the responsibilities so that no such conflict of interest could occur.
	Mr. Linthwaite came to see me, seeking to take a complaint to the parliamentary ombudsman. I was happy for that to happen, as I was convinced of the rightness of his case, but I had an uneasy feeling about the outcome on the basis of the comments of the inspector of schools. The ombudsman replied on 3 October. He felt that he was constrained by the rules governing his own responsibilities from taking the matter any further. However, in his letter to me, he stated:
	"I see the strength of Mr. Linthwaite's argument that a complaints procedure that requires a complaint about a registered inspector first to be put to the contractor for the inspection who may even be the same person as the registered inspector cannot be seen to be fair and impartial".
	I believe that that is a telling comment from a person at the head of the final stage of any grievance procedure affecting the citizens of this country. He went on to argue that while he recognised the concerns, the following stages of the Ofsted complaints procedure should ensure that justice was done—but why not consider a direction that simply removes the problem in the first place: the separation by Ofsted of the role of the contractor from that of the registered inspector?
	I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the case for that change. One school has been affected by the issue, but there may be others. I do not intend to pass judgment on the outcome of the inspection. Some issues of injustice have been noted by Ofsted and they have been taken up with the West Yorkshire inspection and consultancy services. In that sense, the issue of the outcome of the inspection is finished. The action plan proposed by the school and the local education authority has worked and the school is once again going forward confidently and successfully, but the central area of concern remains: the perceived issue of a compromised process. Quite simply, making a statutory split between the contractor and inspector would allow the inspection process to go forward confidently and without the perceived taint of conflict of interest that was so evident at Belmont school.
	I believe that the relevant legislation—the School Inspections Act 1996 and the Education (School Inspection) Regulations 1997—need amending, and that a simple statutory instrument could achieve that and would not be objected to by any Member of Parliament. Such a measure could prevent the issue from arising again, perhaps in a form that threatens the cohesion of a school so badly that it becomes a failing school through a self-fulfilling prophesy. No one wants that to happen and the remedy is in the Minister's hands. I thank the House for listening.

Stephen Timms: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on securing this Adjournment debate, which deals with an issue that is clearly of close personal interest to him, as well as to a significant number of those whom he represents. I commend him for the very measured way in which he presented his case to the House and for the very supportive role that he has played throughout, which includes the fact that he alerted me to his concerns ahead of the debate.
	I was very pleased that my hon. Friend acknowledged the important role that school inspections play in the drive for higher standards. It is vital that Ofsted is able to do the job that we all want it to do: inspecting, reporting and providing expert advice that is underpinned by the evidence of its inspections.
	It is also important that Ofsted has the full confidence of those it serves and that it is properly responsive and accountable to them. It is always worrying when teachers or others feel that they have not had a fair deal from an inspection, or that the conduct or reporting of an inspection did not meet the high standards expected.
	Ofsted is a separate, non-ministerial department and, like other such departments, it is required to have procedures for handling complaints when they arise. It is important to recognise from the outset that Ofsted is the regulator of the contracted-out school inspection system. It is independent of contractors and those whom they employ, such as the team who inspected Belmont primary school.
	To put this evening's debate in context, between 1 September 2000 and 31 August 2001 Ofsted dealt with 188 complaints of which four were upheld and 24 partially upheld. Out of a total of 4,448 inspections, that suggests a relatively high satisfaction rate or at least a low rate of complaint. Nevertheless, it is important that those who complain receive a fair and effective response.
	As my hon. Friend said, Belmont primary school was inspected in March 2000. It was not a happy inspection. We have heard this evening that several complaints were made about various aspects of it. They have been carefully investigated through Ofsted's internal complaints process and, more recently, by its independent adjudicator.
	That the process took some 13 months is, of course, worrying and Her Majesty's chief inspector, Mike Tomlinson, openly acknowledged that and offered his sincere apologies for the unacceptably long delay.
	Although the delay was unacceptable, it was also uncharacteristic. The average time that Ofsted takes to investigate and respond to complaints is around 30 days, and 95 per cent. of complaints are tackled in the three-month target period. The case that we are considering is clearly exceptional.
	Ofsted has acknowledged the problems and taken action to ensure that that sort of delay is not repeated. Procedures have been modified, and some changes have been made to the organisation. Ofsted has recently put a new look complaints section on its website. Early in the new year, it intends to publish revised complaints procedures which reflect some of the lessons that have been learned from the case.
	As my hon. Friend said at the close of his remarks, he initiated the debate partly to ensure that others do not suffer similar problems. I hope that he will welcome the changes. He drew our attention to the quality of Ofsted's initial response to the various complaints. It was perceived as dismissive and inadequate. That perception was at least partly confirmed by the independent complaints adjudicator, Elaine Rassaby, when she examined the case. In the adjudication sent on 4 March 2001, she suggested, among other recommendations, that Ofsted should reconsider the original complaint in the light of all the available evidence.
	Ofsted did that, and wrote substantively to Mr. Linthwaite on 11 May 2001. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it was a comprehensive nine-page reply. Ofsted acknowledges that its initial response in June 2000 was somewhat mechanistic and not as thorough as it might have been. Consequently, some aspects of the complaints that were initially rejected were later upheld.
	The case demonstrates the value of the Ofsted complaints adjudicator as an independent reviewer at the end of the internal complaints process. My hon. Friend acknowledged that Elaine Rassaby's intervention was helpful to his constituents. The debate provides an opportunity to pay tribute to her for her work as adjudicator since July 1998. She reaches the end of her term at the end of the month. She has successfully established and developed the post and hands it on to her successor in good shape. Her successor is likely to be in post in January and, for the first time, will be appointed by the Secretary of State rather than Ofsted, in line with Elaine Rassaby's proposal, and for three years rather than one. That will enhance the independence of the post.
	On the specifics of this case and, in particular, the concern at the heart of my hon. Friend's speech that the husband-wife relationship between contractor and registered inspector prevented fair consideration of the complaints, Elaine Rassaby expressed the view that this concern was properly addressed by Ofsted's complaints procedures. Those allow dissatisfied complainants to refer their concerns to Ofsted and finally to the Ofsted complaints adjudicator. My hon. Friend noted that the parliamentary ombudsman also felt that the ability to refer complaints to Ofsted should ensure that justice is done.
	My hon. Friend suggested that it would be helpful to ensure a clearer separation of functions between inspection contractors and registered inspectors. The role of contractors is defined by Ofsted and is a contractual matter rather than being set out in legislation, so such a provision would not require a statutory instrument or other measure of that kind. So my hon. Friend's suggestion is, in the first instance at least, a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector, Mike Tomlinson. I know that members of his staff are paying attention to this debate and will report back to him on its content. Having listened to my hon. Friend's concerns, I want to make it clear that I will also ask the chief inspector to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion and write to him directly with a response to it.
	On inspection judgments, it is important to note that complaints which questioned the objectivity and rigour of the inspection were not upheld. The judgment that a school has serious weaknesses is not taken lightly. It is arrived at as a corporate decision, after extensive consideration of evidence gathered both before and during the inspection from a variety of sources, including discussions with the head teacher, staff and governors. It was Ofsted's view, following careful scrutiny, that the key judgment of the inspection team—that the school had serious weaknesses—was secure and supported by the evidence that had been gathered.
	My hon. Friend noted early in this debate that the school had been told that it could not challenge the inspection judgments. Ofsted's view is that when complaints are upheld which have a bearing on the judgments in an inspection report, Ofsted's procedures allow for action to be taken. For example, an addendum may be added to a report and, in extreme cases, the report may be withdrawn, reissued or even declared null and void.
	There is, however, no formal appeals system against inspection reports and judgments; nor is it our view that such a system would be appropriate. The then Education and Employment Select Committee, in its detailed examination of the work of Ofsted in 1999, considered this matter and reached the same conclusion that we did. Such a system could undermine the inspection process and lead to lengthy disputes between schools and Ofsted, which would then distract staff and governors from the priority task of developing and improving educational provision at the school.
	This last point leads me to something that is easily lost in the discussion. I am talking, of course, about the impact of inspection on children and their educational opportunities. As I have already mentioned, the inspection of Belmont in March 2000 found that the school had serious weaknesses. As a result of that judgment, challenge and support mechanisms were triggered to help the school to tackle its weaknesses and to develop plans for improvement.
	I was particularly encouraged to learn that evidence gathered during a monitoring visit to Belmont in July this year showed that the school was making good progress in addressing its key action points. I understand that the visit by HMI found improvement on all five issues raised in the original inspection, that progress was not just satisfactory but good on every one of the five and that the HMI visit uncovered no unsatisfactory teaching at all in any of the lessons that were viewed. My hon. Friend has confirmed that optimistic picture this evening, and I know that those improvements will be appreciated by the children and their parents. They are also a tribute to the staff at the school.
	On the evidence before us, it is clear that mistakes were made in this case. Apologies have been offered and procedures re-examined and improved in the light of this case, and I think that that is right. Ofsted has an important job to do and high standards are expected of it.
	Inspection is, above all else, about helping schools to improve. It encourages schools to build on their strengths and to address their weaknesses. The judgment that a school has serious weaknesses is intended to spur that school into improving the education that it provides, with education authority support.
	The news that Belmont is making such good progress is heartening. I know that a great deal of hard work will have been put into achieving that. The school can expect a further inspection next year, because schools identified as having serious weaknesses are reinspected after about two years. I trust that Belmont will then be able to shed the "school with serious weaknesses" label, move on to be recognised as achieving continuous improvement, and play its full part in achieving our aim—and my hon. Friend's aim—of making a first-class education available to every child.
	I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that lessons have been learned from this episode. I am grateful to him for drawing the matter to our attention and for the work he has done in following it for nearly two years. I also hope that he and Belmont parents, pupils and staff can now look forward to making further progress in the months ahead.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.